Support BikePortland - Journalism that Matters

The Monday Roundup: Cars or cafes?, bike repair subsidies, transit demographics, and more

Posted by on May 4th, 2020 at 10:22 am

Welcome to the week. Here are the most noteworthy items our community came across in the past seven days…

Bike repair subsidies: France will provide about $75 per person to keep their bicycles tuned up and rolling in a bid to sweeten the cycling pot post-lockdown. Imagine the economic boost this could give bike shops!

Equity and open streets: Chicago’s main bike/walk advocacy organization has cited equity concerns as a reason to resist calls to limit driving access on some streets to create more distance and safety. Here’s what social justice and other community groups think about the idea.

Cars or cafes?: Maybe Portland would get more traction for carfree streets if we approached the issue like Lithuania’s capital city of Vilnius, which plans to remove auto parking spaces so cafe owners can set up physically-distanced dining tables in streets.

Paradigm shift is nigh: “The pandemic offers a glimpse of what one possible carbon-neutral future could look like,” writes the Christian Science Monitor in an article on making cities more bike-friendly post-pandemic.

Make the boom last: The one and only Carlton Reid drops essential reading on why biking boomed in the 1970s and how to make sure America’s renewed interest in cycling sticks this time around.

COVID-19 advocacy: Washington-based bike advocacy group Cascade has issued a four-point plan and is calling on its members to sign a petition and contact elected officials to make sure bicycling is supported during the pandemic and emerges from the crisis stronger.


Transit demographics: A fascinating look at who’s riding transit still reveals a lot about urban transportation behaviors and mobility justice.

Mapping quarantine: What does your personal map look like during the ‘Stay Home’ order?

Choosing cars: We can count on the evil auto industry to play on fears of the virus to sell cars. They’re already licking their lips.

Deadly trucks: When an auto enthusiast outlet raises the alarm that NHTSA doesn’t do enough to rein in dangers of massive trucks, you know the issue is (finally!) gaining traction.

‘Big Bike’ strikes again!: The National Motorists Association (an actual, real thing) is on the case of how the bike lobby is taking over cities nationwide with anti-car policies.

No driving test: The DMV in Georgia has dropped the final driving test requirement for teens because it can’t be administered with distancing requirements in place.

Paris gets it: The mayor of the French capital is not messing around when it comes to seizing the moment to change the future of mobility in her city for the better.

Bikenomics: Forget health, happiness and clean air – the positive economic impact of active mobility makes for a very strong argument.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.

NOTE: Thanks for sharing and reading our comments. To ensure this is a welcoming and productive space, all comments are manually approved by staff. BikePortland is an inclusive company with no tolerance for meanness, discrimination or harassment. Comments with expressions of racism, sexism, homophobia, or xenophobia will be deleted and authors will be banned.

64 thoughts on “The Monday Roundup: Cars or cafes?, bike repair subsidies, transit demographics, and more”

  1. Avatar Kana O. says:

    This open streets vs equity conversation seems to be largely about misinformed notions of opportunity cost, probably on both sides.

    To the extent implementing an open streets program removes potential resources from measures to address the present’s most dire needs—especially needs of those most vulnerable and affected by the first- and second-order impacts of COVID-19—open streets should be viewed as something of a luxury.

    However, to the extent that resources that might be used for open streets implementation are not fungible in a way that can support the aforementioned dire needs (a proportion of the resources that is likely considerable), open streets also represent a solution to a pressing COVID-related need that is also expressed by some equity communities and perhaps should not be so cavalierly dismissed by equity advocates.

    But on the advocates’ side, open streets to provide safe space for physical distancing probably also shouldn’t be framed or celebrated as a way to push an agenda without going through some kind of process. Permanent changes of this magnitude definitely need a discussion.

    And explicitly say it’s not being enforced to set some at ease; we don’t enforce most infractions of our traffic laws, anyway.

    1. Thanks for that thoughtful comment Kana O.

      I also think some people have concerns about the opportunity cost from a human resource capacity standpoint. That is, my sense of some of the pushback early on was that there was a feeling that no time or thought should be spent on open streets while some of our fellow Portlanders were afraid of not having enough food or money to pay rent. Or where so afraid to leave their house because they didn’t understand what exactly was going on. My reaction to that is just like funding can be flexible, so too can our human resources. And if we agree that safely spaced streets are an urgent need, then we should be able to devote city/civic resources to them. It’s just such a complicated discussion in Portland whenever “equity” is mentioned. Most people just freeze up and tune out. I’m guilty of not wanting to get into those discussions as much on the front page because of the intense scrutiny and accountability they require. It’s some many people need to get better at talking about and taking action on.

      1. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

        Some people tune out because “equity” is often used to shut down conversations, rather than open them up. Once a concept becomes weaponized, it rapidly loses its utility.

        1. Yes absolutely. I’ve said that exact thing. In Portland “equity” has become the end of many conversations. It should be the beginning.

        2. Avatar Middle of the Road Guy says:

          I’d also add, that the people invoking that term often perceive themselves to have a higher moral standing. Even if they are well intentioned, their argument or approach may still be inherently flawed.

        3. Avatar Middle of the Road Guy says:

          The giant trucks should require a different license. At least make it a little more difficult to purchase one, or prove one can actually drive and maneuver such a beast.

          1. Avatar Bikeninja says:

            The giant lifted trucks are one thing ( and yes I agree they need their own license), but what is more ridiculous is that no special license is required to drive ,an even bigger , class A motorhome. These are often built on the same chassis as a Greyhound Bus and can be 40 foot long with a total weight similar to a Semi Truck. So today, a 17 year old in Georgia could take a written test only and climb in a 40 foot long Marathon Motor Coach with 600 hp diesel pusher engine and head out on the highways or the streets of Portland and it would be legal without even a driving test.

            1. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

              And that teen connects with his now out-idled high school chemistry teacher and turns that RV into a meth lab, we could have another Breaking Bad situation on our hands.

              This licensing situation is looking worse and worse.

            2. Avatar Middle of the Road Guy says:

              I honestly did not know that. It seems absolutely ludicrous!

            3. Avatar Chris I says:

              I rented one of the largest Uhaul trucks a few years back to move some very long roofing panels. The truck is about 32ft long (empty weight 13,000lbs), and I remember thinking “Wow, I can’t believe I can just rent one of these things” as they handed over the keys.

              1. Avatar Middle of the Road Guy says:

                Funny – I had the exact same recollection. Like “I am not really qualified to drive this thing.”

            4. Avatar Rain Waters says:

              In Georgia he does NOT even need a written test anymore.

          2. Avatar GlowBoy says:

            I’ve been saying since the beginning of the SUV boom that larger vehicles (over, say, 5000 pounds, a cutoff that would exempt midsize SUVs, full-sized light-duty 2×4 pickups and smaller 4x4s, but would include Tahoe-class SUVs, full-sized 4x4s and all heavy-duty pickups) should require a special CDL-type license. Sadly, I rarely find people who support me in that viewpoint. Glad to have you on board, MORG.

            Exceptions could be made for infrequent use such as rentals (for the record, when my wife and I moved from Seattle to Portland last century, I drove us and our worldly possessions down in a U-Haul truck the same size as Chris I describes). But at the very least you shouldn’t be able to register a large truck without proof of qualification to drive it.

            1. Avatar Chris I says:

              They are mostly for toy towing, or just for image. The ideal contractor vehicle is a Ranger or Tacoma with a lumber rack. Many of these new pickups are too tall for the beds to be useful in construction.

              1. Avatar GlowBoy says:

                To be clear, I said Tahoes would NOT be exempt if the cutoff were 5000 lb. They are heavier than that, and would require a CDL under my proposal.

            2. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

              This hasn’t been posted for a while. It seems appropriate now:


            3. Avatar Rain Waters says:

              In whose opinion is anothers need ?

            4. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

              Ours. We define what other people need.

        4. Avatar Kana O. says:

          Thank you, Jonathan. And good thoughts to both.

          Jonathan, I would encourage you to use your platform just a bit more than you are comfortable—to host exchanges/musings at the intersection of transportation and equity. Because the conversations do most frequently stop when someone says “equity” (out of a well-meant but ill-serving impulse); because our most sustainable transportation solutions are often framed at the wrong end of equity (they needn’t be—Black Portlanders ride transit at nearly twice the rate of white Portlanders); because our elected officials are increasingly committed to equity of that same generic, unquestioned/unexamined brand; the conversation on transportation and equity is not very sophisticated (e.g. bikes = white + bad) and no one locally seems to be trying to navigate it in a way that values all viewpoints and moves us all away from climate catastrophe (to say nothing of over-policing, traffic violence, landscapes that are public health catastrophes).

          You’re right hosting these conversations requires courage, especially in this culture where a few too many seem to want to show how woke they are or how much they know or how disdainful they can be of well-meaning white people. But trying to talk about equity in a complex way and making mistakes while doing it is much better than doing nothing at all. In fact, it is our obligation, especially if we want anything to change.

          Trying to work through equity and airing your own ignorance and being receptive to helpful criticism and doing that publicly can go a long way toward making others in this and adjacent communities feel more comfortable exploring these issues in their own lives and thoughts. Normalize uncertainty curiosity, being wrong, the possibility of redemption, and the working of things out instead of intellectual pugilism and always having a fully formed thought.

          1. Thank you Kana O. You are reaching into my head and sharing many of the thoughts I have myself. There are major added complexities to doing that myself and on BikePortland because I’m white. In many ways some will perceive and even I will consider the mere use of this platform is “taking up space” and making more noise… And white people making noise about equity is part of the problem. I have tried and I think done a pretty good job over years of using BP to present and discuss race and equity and there’s always more work to do.

            I had an entire story ready to go about the open streets/equity thing a bit ago. Had a nice conversation with the leader of APANO and lots of thoughts I wanted to share. But the timing didn’t feel right and then the moment passed. Again, for better or worse I try to be super careful with that topic on here … Especially given that the context this time was this feeling among some in the community that BikePortland (whether that means me personally and/or the other people that use this as their platform) was already making too much noise about the issue too early on and therefore was not being sensitive to BIPOC and/or people of lower incomes/fewer privileges.

            I felt it was time for BP to be quiet a bit and let someone else step in.

            Suffice it to say I appreciate your advice on this.

            1. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

              One way to start is to stop using overloaded terms like “equity” and use other words to describe the concept, such as “fairness”. Try framing the discussion in ways that don’t align to a well-hewn and politicized narrative, and challenge us to think along new axes.

              On the 7th/9th topic, for example, the conversation was nominally about bike access. Underlying that was a racial narrative, but beneath that could have been a conversation about democracy, and the role of the public in shaping policies for streets that many of us feel a sense of ownership over. One key question was whether people living in a place longer should have a different voice in the process than newcomers. Why or why not? That conversation could have led people to a different place, perhaps challenging them to think more deeply than their initial reflex, and might have better prepared us for the coming conversation about PBOT’s street-closing plan.

            2. Avatar Kana O. says:

              Jonathan, I think you might need to make a distinction between taking up space and making space. Taking space is what you do because of beliefs you and others have about what it means to be white and male. There are ways you can take up less space (which can be good), but it is not quite the same as making space, which is also not the same as silence (in every case). Especially when you have a readership that wouldn’t otherwise interact with an in depth discussion of equity. Making space in your case could be providing a platform for ideas, plights, and voices your readership isn’t familiar with. Making space isn’t (just) shutting up; it is clearing the way, opening the door, listening, understanding, amplifying, checking in, and doing it again.

              Hello, Kitty, as politicized as the word equity is, it is the key word that defines the space in which we need to do work and the word which cues people into knowing what body of work we are talking about. It seems like the question of “to what extent should neighborhood longevity influence weight of feedback” was addressed during the 7th/9th project and it was addressed within the equity framework—it seems like the answer was something like “longevity should affect weighting if you are part of a community that has been deliberately picked apart for decades and certain project elements would exacerbate the sense that this is business as usual.” I agree a more detailed conversation about equity, fairness, equality and the underlying values driving players in these conversations could be useful in the long term, but often these conversations can be retraumatizing to communities and community members that have been through what Portland’s Black community has.

              1. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

                The problem with “defining the space” with burdened political terms is that they also help define and direct the conversation. “Ok, we’re having the equity conversation.” I’m not suggesting abandoning the concepts, but rather that discarding the rhetoric and staking out a new direction might make space for new voices and perspectives.

                “Inequity” can end a conversation, but “unfair” invites a bit more discussion simply because it is a bit more open.

              2. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

                PS Your definition “longevity should affect weighting if you are part of a community that has been deliberately picked apart for decades and certain project elements would exacerbate the sense that this is business as usual” could work for me if I am the one that defines “my community.”

              3. Avatar Kana O. says:

                “Unfair” does point toward discussion; my first thought on hearing this is unfair is but what is fair? which I think is your intention. You might be onto something…!

                And you’re right about my definition; I should have added that the decisionmakers also have to agree that you are a part of that community that “…has been deliberately picked apart for decades…” and that such a community actually exists.

              4. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

                Well… there’s a lot of interpretation that would be required to use your definition of who gets a seat at the table. Regardless of whether we used it or not, I do feel pretty strongly that I define my own community, not the government or other “decision makers”, and I don’t feel my views have been well represented.

                As to what is fair (or equitable), that’s a reasonable question. Is it unfair to temporarily block off some streets to through vehicular traffic? I don’t think so, but some do, and I would love to hear more of their thinking beyond a flat assertion that it’s “inequitable”. That’s what I hope a different framing will allow us to get to.

              5. Avatar rain panther says:

                Can I nominate the previous like 6 or 8 comments for some sort of shared Comment of the Week?

  2. Avatar Phil says:

    I can’t believe that Georgia is giving out licenses without a driving test. That is insane.

    1. when you consider that many places and people are unable to move around without a car, it makes more sense. For many folks a car is essential transportation. You can’t just say: “You can’t legally use your car because we can’t give you a license.” That would not be cool or fair IMO.

      What they can and should do is offer a provisional license with an asterisk and then require all issued during this pandemic must return to DMV for the test or the license is invalid.

      1. Avatar Phil says:

        I see what you are saying, but we aren’t talking about allowing people to renew their licenses. We are talking about granting brand new licenses to teenagers. This is a group of people who do not currently drive (unsupervised). They have not become reliant on driving themselves around, because they have not yet been legally allowed to do so. It is unlikely that they need to get anywhere with everything locked down. If schools reopen then that means buses are going to start running again.

        I know there might be a few exceptions, but I feel like I’m missing something as to why this is necessary in the current state of things.

        1. Because even teenagers can, and often do, hold down jobs. In many poor families they are significant breadwinners. And in most of the country, not just the South, the only way to get to jobs and most errands is by car – transit only exists in larger towns and cities, while walking and bicycling can be quite deadly when no facilities exist, and not helpful when showing up to work dry is a must. It’s too easy when you live in an urban progressive setting like Portland how much of the rest of the country is more like East or Southwest Portland with no sidewalks, little transit, narrow painted shoulders, etc.

          1. Sorry, editing error:
            It’s too easy when you live in an urban progressive setting like Portland to not realize or forget how much of the rest of the country is more like East or Southwest Portland with no sidewalks, little transit, narrow painted shoulders, etc.

            1. Avatar Fred says:

              Everyone should read James Howard Kunstler’s book (, in which he posits that “car ownership is practically a requirement of American citizenship.” In other words, in America we’ve built places that cannot be traveled around except by car, and then we’re surprised when people want to get around by some means other than a car.

      2. Avatar Chris I says:

        Let’s also consider that Georgia is almost fully opening their state right now. People can go to nail salons and barbers, but we can’t have a driving instructor sit in someone’s car while wearing a mask? It’s a double-standard, and it shows where their priorities are.

  3. Avatar dan says:

    Re: Jalopnik, they are an auto enthusiast outlet, but they’re also pretty urbanist and progressive. They are against hooning on public streets, for instance. Calling out the dangers of monster trucks is pretty on brand for them.

    1. Avatar Chris I says:

      Your average suburbanite car-user should be just as concerned about these monsters on our roads. The dissimilar mass and frontal-area of new SUVs and pickups is incredibly deadly to occupants of average-sized vehicles. Your crumple zone doesn’t crumple if the bumper/grill completely bypasses it and hits your window or windshield. If you scan Oregonlive for fatal crashes, you’ll notice that many of them sound like this:
      “Driver in xxx sedan failed to yield and was hit by xxx pickup/SUV on xxx highway”.

  4. Avatar Jim Lee says:

    Hello, Kitty
    One way to start is to stop using overloaded terms like “equity” and use other words to describe the concept, such as “fairness”. Try framing the discussion in ways that don’t align to a well-hewn and politicized narrative, and challenge us to think along new axes.On the 7th/9th topic, for example, the conversation was nominally about bike access. Underlying that was a racial narrative, but beneath that could have been a conversation about democracy, and the role of the public in shaping policies for streets that many of us feel a sense of ownership over. One key question was whether people living in a place longer should have a different voice in the process than newcomers. Why or why not? That conversation could have led people to a different place, perhaps challenging them to think more deeply than their initial reflex, and might have better prepared us for the coming conversation about PBOT’s street-closing plan.Recommended 1

    Ban “equity,” inclusion,” et cetera and soon no virtue signaling would be possible!

    1. Avatar 9watts says:

      Sounds a lot like Make America Great Again….

      1. Avatar Middle of the Road Guy says:

        Empty and jingoistic.

  5. Avatar Rod B. says:

    As a person of color and a daily bike commuter, I detest it when “equity” ends up being used to keep the transportation status quo and do nothing. When the Great Reopening happens, people will be hesitant to crowd onto buses and light rail. Making it easier for more people to feel safe biking to work could be critical to reopening more workplaces without having people rely on cars. Many cities are working on repurposing street space for bikes so that getting to work by bike is an attractive option for way more people than before. Portland should be one of these places. Sometimes leadership is needed. Such as now.

    1. Avatar Dave says:

      Rod B, you’re so right–read the website bicycle There was a recent article on a couple of East Los Angeles barrio bike shops, both going great guns right now partly with regulars enjoying the lack of traffic and partly with new cyclists who usually use the bus but are. now afraid to!

  6. Avatar todd.boulanger says:

    as for “Big Bike”…I think there is a bigger threat not yet identified by the true news: it is “Deep Bike”…all those transportation technocrats that remain and have served through the Clinton, Bush, Obama administrations and now are doing great harm during the Trump administration! They must GO, as they know engineering, statistics, public administration process and how to use it!!

  7. It’s that darn Portland bicycle conspiracy, all those MAMILs with skin in the game from the billions being raked in with their bicycle tax!

  8. Avatar GlowBoy says:

    Re: “Big Bike” and “War on Cars” BS:

    Ever notice that so many of our projects to make things better for bikers and walkers, even ones that have minimal impact on cars, run into local opposition from people you wouldn’t think would care so much?

    I’m beginning to suspect a lot more of this than we’ve realized is actually Astroturf. NMA and/or associated organizations might actually be funding our on-the-ground opposition. I have no proof, but resistance to bike/ped improvements is too organized for this not to be the case. Maybe NE 28th really was an instance of one or two concerned business owners going around completely on their own initiative to collect signatures from every other business on the avenue. But what if someone had a little incentive? I give you two recent examples here in the Twin Cities.

    – In my own neighborhood, Minnehaha Parkway is a modest-paced boulevard that winds through south Minneapolis next to lovely Minnehaha Creek. The Parks & Rec Board, which owns the road, is proposing to install a few barriers to prevent through traffic on a mile-long section – where there is a parallel arterial just two blocks away. You’d think well-off nearby residents would support this, since they could still access their houses, but their picturesque boulevard would become quieter, more walkable – and more private? Nope, every other house near the parkway sports a “Save Minnehaha Parkway!” sign (with a subtitle, “Before It’s Too Late!”). There are easily hundreds of these professionally printed signs. When these sprouted last year, I might have thought it was the work of a dedicated activist, until …

    – This spring the first-ring suburb of Saint Louis Park proposed bike lanes on a half-mile section of Wooddale Avenue, an important connector linking one of its commercial districts with nearby Edina. Alternatives included either removing a couple dozen parking spaces or about a dozen mature trees. Ultimately the trees have won in the latest version of the proposal, which means some people will lose parking in front of their homes (as far as I know there are no businesses fronting this stretch – it’s all houses). And guess what? Just a few weeks after the city council floated the proposal, “Preserve Wooddale” signs have popped up on half the houses along Wooddale and in nearby neighborhoods. Like the Minnehaha signs, they’re professionally printed.

    – I can’t also neglect mentioning the yard-sign war over our recent 2040 Plan, which has made us the first city in the country to abolish single-family-home-only zoning. These towering structures known as – gasp, triplexes! – are now allowed on every residential lot. Although the Plan got enough support to easily get passed by the City Council, you wouldn’t know it from yard signs. I paid Neighbors for More Neighbors for my pro-2040 sign in my yard, which is massively outnumbered (like 20:1) by “Don’t Bulldoze Minneapolis!” signs (subtitled with something disingenuous like “don’t let developers win”) all over the place. Guess which side printed up thousands of signs AND gave them away for free? Somebody’s paying for that.

    It was only with the signs in SLP that I finally noticed the pattern keeps repeating: the more-cars side has lots of yard signs, the fewer-cars side has almost none. Maybe there’s money funding these supposedly grassroots movements. One more thing: overlooking our busiest freeway interchange (interstates 35W and 494) is a billboard that for years has carried messages like “Tired of congestion? Tell your legislators we need more lanes!) Nevermind that the problem isn’t a shortage of pavement: both freeways are already 8 lanes each at that location, and 35W becomes 14-lane monolith towering over the neighborhood just two miles to the north. Guess who pays for this billboard? Good old Koch Industries.

    I’m just saying a few thousand yard signs probably cost less than the permanent lease on a billboard. We need to start following the money, and daylighting those who fight us.

    1. Hello, Kitty Hello, Kitty says:

      Follow the money, as you say, and you’ll end up at orgs like Sightline Institute. On the other side, you’ll inevitably find mostly neighborhood-level donors, which makes sense. People don’t spontaneously organize to promote a pro-growth building agenda, but they do to defend their neighborhoods and homes.

    2. Avatar Chris I says:

      It’s definitely not outside of the realm of possibility:

      1. Avatar Dave says:

        If the remaining Koch bro dies of coronavirus I’ll start believing in god and join my local synagogue.

    3. Avatar todd.boulanger says:

      GlowBoy – try to call up the company that made the signs near you…there may be a printers mark on your local example – they may tell you who contracted with them. It cannot hurt.

      1. Avatar GlowBoy says:

        Great tip. I might try that.

      2. Avatar GlowBoy says:

        Thanks for the NYTimes/Koch Brothers link, Chris I. Americans for Prosperity is the same Koch group sponsoring the billboard here, so not surprising they’re doing the same thing in many other places.

  9. Avatar paikiala says:

    “Maybe Portland would get more traction for carfree streets if we approached the issue like Lithuania’s capital city of Vilnius…”
    Like this?:

    1. I love the “street seats” program but it’s a one-off, one-restaurant-at-a-time solution. It also only allows seats to be squeezed into the parking lane. It’s never used as framing for a carfree block or street or corridor. In fact, I bet if 5-6 restaurant owners got together and wanted to do a half-block long street seat, PBOT would reject the permit due to parking concerns or some other reason. Question: If an entire block-face of businesses agreed that they wanted seating in the streets, would PBOT allow it?

      I’m glad you pointed to Street Seats program… Now if only PBOT would embrace the moment, embrace that program, and expand it to actually do something substantial we’d have something to celebrate!

      1. Avatar B. Carfree says:

        A small group of us in Eugene are about to organize our neighborhood businesses, mostly restaurants, cafes, pubs and bars, to see if they will join us to close the streets to cars/open the streets to seating.

        I suspect we’re going to get a few Friday and Saturday evenings with only one partial street, but it’s a start. Crawl, walk, run, that sort of thing. If we pull it off, I’ll write it up. If we fail, I never heard of it. 🙂

        1. That sounds like a very solid start B. Carfree. That first one can be used as an example of what’s possible… then you document it well and rally folks around the vision and get more of it. And yes, write it up! Would love to share your story here.

      2. Avatar paikiala says:

        Ignoring that this has already happened once:

        PBOT has a program for such proposals:

  10. Avatar Roberta Robles says:

    The most fair solution is to PUNISH drivers who hit people with the same aggression that we went after drunk drivers. The State of Oregon is not protecting us.

    Complaining about BikeLoudPDX being to loud in being who they are is not helpful. We dont need any expensive HARD infrastructure. We need the state of Oregon to come down on drivers who hit pedestrians with JAIL time, license revocation and close to bankruptcy. We need to go after these drivers with the same aggression as drunk drivers.

    In terms of whose been here longer, well some of us have been listening to the same empty promises for decades.

    Stop blaming BL, at least they are willing to push the conversation forward. Sadly I see BikePortland continuing to be softballs on the matter. Publish what you feel. We keep coming back, dont worry about causing a ruckus. That is movement where we can get behind. Until then stop giving any transportation department any more money until they protect us. And no sorry, the equity argument doesnt work on drunk drivers and it doesnt work for traffic victims either. Equity should mean protection, not softball TDM programs that maintain the status quo.

  11. Avatar Pat Lowell says:

    For next week’s Monday Roundup. This was gut-wrenching. 🙁

    1. Avatar B. Carfree says:

      That certainly mixed my emotions. Since I fell down and went boom last October, I’ve had more moments of self-pity than I want to admit to. I haven’t been able to ride since New Year’s and likely won’t until after the 4th of July, but I know I will ride again (slower every year, and that’s just fine since my vision is slightly worse every year and so I need to slow down anyway to enjoy the sights).

      I’m crying over what happened to the author but feeling guilty for being a baby and whining over a relatively trivial inconvenience that I caused myself while also being uplifted by his awesome push to force his body to be able to do as much as it possibly can after so much trauma.

      Maybe this article, or some similar story from a surviving parent who has lost a beloved child, should be required reading for renewing a license to drive. If a motorist can read this without being driven to tears or at least a moment of reflection, s/he has failed the test and can’t renew.

      1. Avatar Pat Lowell says:

        I’m sorry you crashed! Sounds like it was pretty bad if you’ve been off the bike for so long. Injuries always suck, even if they could have been worse. Hope you’re back on the bike soon.

  12. I have a general question for everyone: My city is apparently willing to create pop-up bike lanes on many of its multi-lane arterial roadways, but they’ve run out of orange cones to do it, from all the actual construction projects around town. Other the bales of hay which they’ve already ruled out, what other cheap and plentiful materials would you suggest we line our streets with that is cheap, movable, and yet recognizable by motorists as being off-limits?

    1. Avatar Roberta says:

      We’ve had good luck using hay bales as cheap barriers. I would only use them after June in the summer, due to moisture In Oregon. IDK where you are so hard to say what will work for temporary barriers. Hay bales turn into mushy danger zones for cyclists after a while, so not a long term solution 🙂

    2. Avatar paikiala says:

      other items:

      Many home improvement stores sell half barrels for $40.
      Planters in a painted buffer work:

    3. Avatar todd.boulanger says:

      David – it depends on what you have at hand…I have been thinking about suggesting the use of parked cars…placed in strategic locations at the ends of each block to block off half a lane (allowing cyclists/ pedestrians to get by but not cars…just move the parking lane out with a diagonal / parallel parking. No engineering permits are needed to park under used cars on overwide streets…perhaps just a supplemental type 2 barricade with an official note. There are a lot of cars stored on streets now that are not moving much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *