It’s gotten to the point where local transportation agencies need to have a summit to figure out best practices for keeping drivers off bike paths.
Yesterday I learned that a driver of a car managed to roll onto the bike path alongside I-5 north of Marine Drive. A video posted to Reddit shows the driver going northbound on the path over the Columbia River en route to Hayden Island. The video is accompanied by the caption, “They almost hit a bicyclist!” but I didn’t see any rider in the video. The person who shot the video shared with me that the driver and bike rider were headed straight towards each other, “and the car slowed down and the biker swerved then he yelled something at the car and the car sped up and continued on their merry way.”
Yikes. I’m glad no one was hurt; but the mental scars of incidents like this often last longer than physical injuries.
This is just one in a very long line of attacks on carfree spaces. It is impossible at this point for transportation agencies to shrug this off as a random incident. A quick search of the BikePortland archives reveals that drivers have sped onto the I-205 path (several times), the Springwater Corridor (most recently back in May), the Columbia Slough Trail, the Peninsula Crossing Trail, the path along the Willamette River on Swan Island, and so on and so forth.
And just this morning as I typed up this post, a reader told me she watched a driver turn onto the paths in Waterfront Park from Naito Parkway.
What would the response be if a freight train operator steered intentionally down a neighborhood arterial street? Or if an airline pilot tried used I-5 as a runway just for fun? Or heck, imagine the response if a bicycle rider felt like pedaling along at 12 mph on I-5 just because they could?
We need DOTs, parks bureaus, and any agencies that oversee multi-use paths to come together, trade notes, learn why this keeps happening, and devise a strategy to prevent it. Having drivers on spaces where people go to get away from them is an unacceptable outcome of a system that’s already way too tilted toward people in cars.
Whether it’s people who get confused and think it’s a legit lane, or folks who live along the path and are just driving “home”, pranksters who think it’s funny, or selfish scofflaws avoiding congestion — we need to make it more difficult for cars to enter these paths.
In this most recent example, there are several spots where a driver could easily roll off the street and enter the path system. I counted four places where a driver would encounter little to no resistance. Take a look at the photos below and you’ll see just how easy it is for someone to roll onto the bike path:
I sympathize with DOTs because they must balance access restrictions with making sure it’s still easy and safe to enter paths by bike or wheelchair or whatever other non-car vehicle someone has. We’ve seen clunky attempts to address this problem many times in the past with large gates and huge concrete barricades.
Surely there’s a better way to do this. But until these agencies coordinate and make an intentional, concerted effort to remedy the issue, we’ll continue to see breaches into these carfree spaces. And with each one, we further erode the trust and confidence of the non-driving public.
We must defend our carfree spaces from these dangerous interlopers, or risk losing these precious refuges forever.
UPDATE, July 12th, 8:30 am: A reader told me he reported a missing bollard onto this path (at Marine Drive and Union Court) to the Oregon Department of Transportation. According to an email from Katherine Wentzel from the Ask ODOT office on April 5th, 2023, “Maintenance staff shared they are having ongoing issues with the bollards being stolen or at times ran over. Staff is exploring options for better bollards or a fix to the problem and do not have plans to reinstall them at this time.”
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Sounds like we need the World Bollard Association (x.com/worldbollard) on the case
I strongly agree with this statement. Look the the Greeley MUP- that has become a de facto driveway due to PBOT and the City refusing to address the paradox of allowing a camp in a location that requires frequent servicing but that has no access. The bollard has been replaced once and it lasted a day. The rest of the time, this narrow MUP has seen regular vehicle traffic. The other facility that is regularly being used by vehicles and as a pedestrian route is Better Naito. In addition to the regular uber drop offs in the bike lanes and the vendors using it for parking and loading for Saturday Market and assorted festivals, the City has now started fencing off the sidewalk between Taylor and Yamhill. This forces pedes into the bike lanes. I alerted PBOT, expecting a quick, “oops, we will shift those fence right away to maintain pedestrian access”, but instead, I was informed that the City now considers the bike lanes to be an MUP and that pedestrians can be directed there any time. So much for fast bikes use Naito! All of our public spaces are constantly under threat of being privatized or put to use and I support every effort to protect bike-specific spaces for the safe use of cycling.
I think the fast bikes use Naito signs were there before Better Naito. It was always a bit of an eye-roll though because the Naito bike lanes were such a disaster — the river MUP was the only real option. Better Naito was always a shared bike/ped arrangement and I think it had all the markings for that from the beginning. I am always happy to go slow when it clogs up during festivals — it’s a nice respite.
In related news, I noticed the city just this week refurbished some of the green paint near the Burnside section. Hopefully they get to the other sections soon.
The Naito Pkwy bikeway IMO has worked out remarkably very well despite inconsiderate motorists and speeding bicyclists. The Riverside walkway could be improved by adding 5′ of concrete sidewalk into Waterfront Park lawn, relocated benches, bike racks and a few ornamental street lamps. Designate the parkside for bicycling, the river side for pedestrians. Signage such as “Bicyclists pass nearby pedestrians at walking speed” is necessary as they share that side of the walkway with pedestrians heading to/from relocated seating.
The problem is both the standard solution, a bollard in the middle of the path, and the newer solution, twin bollards with a larger space in between, both bring with them a serious risk of injury to cyclists, especially when riding with groups. My riding group calls out “POST!” at every trail crossing that has one, to avoid horrors like this: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/king-county-to-pay-10m-to-cyclist-paralyzed-in-bollard-crash/
Sounds like some jurisdictions in Canada are actively -removing- bollards to make trails safer. https://www.albernivalleynews.com/news/crd-asked-to-pull-bollards-that-cause-cyclists-horrific-injuries-7294811
I don’t mean this in a snarky way, but I would much rather take my chances against a bollard than an unhinged motorist driving on one of these paths.
Bollards are used throughout Europe’s best bicycling and pedestrian cities. They stop cars, they save lives.
I’m very aware of the potential risks that bollords pose to cyclists and have a pragmatic view of them. I’m not sure if they offer enough protection from unaware, impaired, or malicious motorists to offset the injuries they cause to MUP users.
Some jurisdictions do an excellent job with extra paint and other cues in the around bollords while others just leave a decaying gray wood post. I’ve seen lots of bollords that have aged to the point that any high visibility paint has faded and reflective elements no longer reflect light. If bollords are the barrier of choice there’s got to be best practices implemented for both design and periodic maintenance.
What makes bollards dangerous to cyclists in the US is that they are so rare they are completely unexpected. Places, like the entrance to the Springwater, they are expected and I am not aware of them causing problems, except that they don’t seem to be strong enough to physically stop cars. I am 100% pro-bollard for protecting bike access from cars and pedestrians and bus stops from cars. But I agree, that they must be installed carefully to minimize risk to unsuspecting cyclists with reflective material, contrasting colors, not at the end of a downhill, not as a speed deterrent, etc.
I would love to know if this actually was an attack, or a confused driver, or just someone heading home in a manner you have in the past deemed acceptable.
I see it as an attack whether it’s literal or figurative. And I don’t exactly recall when I referenced driving on paths as acceptable, but if I did it was probably in reference to certain situations where people are living in their cars or something. In general, I don’t think it’s acceptable for anyone to drive on these paths – regardless of their housing situation.
Was “speeds” in the headline also figurative?
yeah it wasn’t meant as a factual statement that the person was speeding. I have no idea how fast they were going
More concrete blocks and physical protection, please! Curbs are cute, but there’s not much left that will stop the average big pick up truck, SUV, or box truck.
The best option to stop the vehicles is putting cement or steel poles in the ground each one 4ft apart. Problem solved.do this at every opening. So a vehicle can’t get in. It’s not hard to do . Use your brains, odot. Oops that’s something nobody knows. Gee that’s why we don’t have the problem in Nashville. Because we use our heads we r smarter then u Oregonians.
And when an emergency vehicle needs to get down the path? Fire truck, ambulance? What do you smarties in Nashville do? Just let the fire burn or the person die?
What are you talking about? Not every square inch of the city is accessible to large vehicles and it doesn’t need to be. Imagine for one second a time before the bike path existed. Emergency vehicles still couldn’t get there. Just because a bike path exists doesn’t mean large vehicles also need access now.
I’ve seen emergency vehicles on the Willamette Greenway Trail several times, providing aid (including life-or-death help)–often to people riding or running/walking on the trail.
The same trail is used regularly by Parks trucks. Some of the work done using those vehicles could be done without using trucks, but other work–say tree trimming or removal–would be difficult to do without them.
Also, if I’m recalling correctly, some trails exist because they do provide emergency- and/or maintenance-vehicle access in addition to bike and pedestrian use.
Maybe a good solution would be a simple “pinch point” where Jersey barriers or the like are used to narrow the path to 5 feet or so.
Have ODOT and PBOT not heard of bollards? They’re fantastic inventions.
Personally, I don’t like unilluminated steel/concrete posts in the middle of bike paths that people ride on at night. It feels inherently unsafe.
It would be helpful to me, at least, to know what the actual danger of people driving on bike paths is vs. the actual danger that bollards pose. Without that information, talk of relative safety is just uninformed speculation. At least cars have lights (sometimes).
How much traffic do you think the I-5 bike path is getting at night with camps arrayed around the path entrance? I sure wouldn’t use it unless I was carrying some form of self defense.
There is no evidence that unhoused people are more likely to commit violent crimes than anyone else, however much certain elected officials love to push this narrative. Personally speaking, I’ve been the victim of several assaults and attempted muggings in my 15 years being here, and not one of those was in any way associated with a homeless camp.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/07/06/data-show-about-half-of-portland-police-arrests-are-people-who-are-unhoused/
Obviously there is no evidence is there?
There’s evidence that unhoused people are more exposed to police interactions and more likely to miss a court date resulting in their arrest, if that’s what you mean.
“Lewis: Most commonly, they’re arrested on what we call procedural charges. These are warrants or say, a supervision violation related to previous arrests. […] If police encounter a person who has such a warrant issued because for example, they failed to appear at their arraignment or some other court date, the statute says that they are mandated to put that person under arrest. […] By far the most common is on warrants alone. So not a new crime. […] I found that consistently, in every city, unhoused people were much less likely to be arrested on a charge that included a violent charge […]”
It helps to actually read the thing you’re using to support your argument before using it. Also, because it apparently needs to be said, arrests are not convictions.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/02/as-homicides-of-homeless-portlanders-rise-city-mulls-gun-violence-prevention-strategy.html
No violence at all is there?
You have zero empathy for any of these people. Mindless talking points.
I never said there was “no violence at all”. Please do not put words in my mouth. As for empathy, I’m not the one fearmongering about unhoused people, let alone stopping tent distribution during a record snowstorm. I guess letting people freeze to death is how our city leaders show how much they really care.
You clearly state that unhoused people are not more likely to commit violent crime.
If there are 20 murders a year among a population of 5000, that would be 2000 murders a year in the general population of Portland.
Do you think that Meth and Fent are just harmless substances?
And if my granny had wheels, she’d be a bike. Do you have any proof that unhoused people in Portland committed 20 murders in a year?
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/homeless/2023/12/21/portland-record-homeless-deaths-2022/72006162007/#:~:text=Violence%20also%20contributed%20homeless%20deaths,by%20firearms%2C%20the%20report%20said.
There were actually 25.
Any more questions?
All of those 25 were _victims_ of violent crime. The more murders, the more victims. Homeless people do crimes, sure, but there is no doubt that there are more victims than criminals. Some of the criminals are housed, and some of the unhoused offenders do more than one crime.
Whoever you are, are you defending deaths of hundreds in the city?
Defending addiction and crime?
Defending people living in garbage?
What is your point or message?
I consider all terrible and want it to end, you apparently think that overdoses, murders, suicides among the unhoused are what?
Its hard to tell, not sure you know or care really…..
Nope. I pointed out that your numbers were fishy and you didn’t respond to that.
I also said that the number of unhoused people who died by violence is a measure of how vulnerable those people were. It certainly does not show that the 25 murder victims were violent people. We don’t know if they were involved in crimes or if in fact they were resisting criminals and defending their communoty.
Hundreds of untimely deaths are important. I’m sorry that I don’t have anything adequate to say about that. I am resisting the narrative that folks who don’t live in houses are just bad people and should go away.
What narrative are you talking about?
No one said all unhoused are bad people.
This started because people mentioned that riding on paths occupied by homeless folks may not be a pleasant experience.
Ask most women how they feel riding these paths alone, especially in the evenings.
Glad you are a fearless Person and it’s fine with you.
There is a substantial criminal element living on the streets and if you and others want to argue against that, be my guest.
You are wrong.
If you ever interacted with people who live on the street they will set you straight.
Houseless people prey on other houseless folks, that’s why it sucks living on the streets and why we need to get them off the streets.
You and others I guess think that they are all just fine out there… move along…let them continue to live in fear and squalor.My numbers are not fishy, if all the residents of the city had the same crime rate as the 5000 houseless people, the entire city would be Mad Max.
“Twenty-five homeless people died by homicide in 2022, accounting for 8% of homeless fatalities.”
You are using a story about unhoused victims of homicide to claim that unhoused people committed those very homicides. Once again, do you have any proof?
You wouldn’t know a good faith argument if it bit you in the face. Every time someone absolutely proves you wrong about whatever you said (and it is every time someone replies you), you move the goal posts or change the subject completely, moving on to something nobody said.
Nobody said any of the BS you’re accusing X of right here. Stick to the actual things people say instead of making things up.
Millions of people take “meth” and “fent” and receive great benefit to their quality of life. Alcohol use, on the other hand, is associated with staggering amounts of morbidity and mortality, has little societal utility, and is also very strongly associated with violent behavior and homicide.
What’s my point?
Anyone who drinks alcohol and in any way judges a methamphetamine or fentanyl users is not only a flaming hypocrite but also someone who irrationally denies the uniquely terrible impact of alcohol use on human health.
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/11/homeless-deaths-multnomah-county/#:~:text=At%20least%20315%20people%20died,often%20relating%20to%20drug%20overdoses.
Are you serious?
It’s always amusing when users of the deadliest and most societally-disruptive recreational drug are utterly clueless about the legitimate uses of so-called “meth” and “fent”. Keep on using your liquid death, BB!*
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/methamphetamine-oral-route/description/drg-20071824
https://www.mayoclinic.org/search/search-results?q=fentanyl
*/s
I am a light drinker. If people take meth or fentanyl and are able to keep their life on an even keel, then I won’t judge them beyond the direct financial support they give to the murderous cartels who think nothing of killing, torturing, and disappearing people. Lots of people.
If that makes me a flaming hypocrite then so be it.
Given that you ignored the fact that there legitimate medical uses for “meth” and “fent” and none for your favorite “hard” drug, it seems that you are experiencing some cognitive dissonance. Hopefully this will pass and you will come to understand that you and BB are not too different from users of other drugs.
Ethanol has legitimate uses in the medical industry as a solvent, antiseptic, and in some cases, as a treatment (for methanol poisoning).
Also, as long as you aren’t driving drunk, it is possible to hold a job, pay bills, and operate as a functioning member of society while being a regular consumer of alcohol. Those that consume alcohol responsibly and in moderation can most definitely criticize the consumption of drugs that are debilitating and incapacitating when consumed outside of controlled medical settings, like meth and fent. To argue otherwise is absurd and ridiculous.
Aha!
So you are a booster of the deadliest and most societally damaging hard drug but are still denying the fact that there are millions of people who take “meth” and “fent” for valid medical reasons “and operate as a
functioning[ableism] member of society”.Thanks for highlighting the fact that ethanol is an industrial solvent/disinfectant and that drinking it is kind of Trumpian*.
Fomepizole is the SOP for methanol poisoning but very nice try!
*/s
“The preferred antidote [for methanol poisoning] is fomepizole, with ethanol used if this is not available.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#:~:text=Early%20treatment%20increases%20the%20chance,a%20high%20degree%20of%20acidosis.
Meth and fent are schedule 2 drugs because habitual use outside of a clinical setting typically leads to addiction and other problems that arise in a relatively short period of abuse. While ethanol also has addictive properties, it has to be consumed in very large quantities over a long period of time to have the destructive effects that comparatively tiny doses of meth and fent have.
Fentanyl is either administered as a palliative for people with terminal conditions, or as an analgesic for people that have major injuries or are recovering from a recent surgery. Use of more than a few small doses over a short period of time invariably leads to addiction, and likely early and untimely death. There is no way that it can be consumed habitually by a person that can hold a job or do the other routine activities that most people do on a regular basis. If pointing that out is abelism, then I’m guilty as charged and happy to be an abelist.
People getting medications legally are keeping their lives on an even keel and aren’t supporting murderous thugs, so no problem by me.
Not sure what you mean by “not too different”. On many (most?) dimensions we’re likely the same.
Almost 14,000 people die each year because people drink and drive. Perhaps it’s drunk-driving home-owners that are more likely to kill other people than those who use “meth” or “fent”…
Is your point that alcohol is dangerous? It certainly is.
In that case I have some bad news about whom you’ve been financially supporting with your federal tax dollars.
“You’ve been supporting…”
You maybe, but not me; I’m a sovereign citizen.
I assume that’s a joke, but the humor eludes me. You were literally just clutching your pearls about “murderous thugs” as if the US and its allies haven’t been murdering and torturing civilians in the name of the American public for decades now.
Do you really consider my disgust with the ghastly violence committed by drug cartels to be “literally clutching at pearls”?
I think we have a very different sense of ethics and morality. Maybe you consider the cartels to be “oppressed people” so anything they do is ok. I can’t think of any other reason you’d minimize their violence.
And did you really expect me to defend murder and torture if it’s done by the US or our allies? I won’t. I condemn it all.
When did I minimize cartel violence?
When you characterized my disgust by it as “clutching at pearls”.
Also, you wouldn’t be the first person to defend torturing the United States’ perceived “enemies”. It’s actually quite a popular opinion.
Was I doing that? Please re-read what I wrote above, especially the part about condemning all torture (regardless of who does it, regardless of why). And then please re-read what I said below about you challenging me on things I didn’t say.
I mean, seriously, how much clearer do I have to be?
You’re off by a factor of 7 if you mean the city of Portland, which is most likely what the statistics are for. So, about 300 murder _victims_ in Portland if the proportion were the same.
There’s no information in the article about who the killers were so you’re not on a good footing to say living in a tent under an overpass makes a person violent. There was some information about the weapons used to kill campers so you’d be safer making statements about gun possession than about where a person lives.
Not any evidence to support your implication that unhoused people are doing a lot of violent crime.
If you have read that, you know that generally the offenses of the ‘unhoused’ are non-violent, mostly status crimes and drug offenses. There wasn’t a clear breakdown but perhaps 20% of arrests had a citation of a violent act.
People who live their lives in public can’t have very many secrets. They get busted for stuff that person inside a house can expect to be private. I wonder if a person living in a tent has the right to refuse access without a warrant, and how often they demand that?
Go to the Blanchet house where I spend some time and survey the unhoused people there.
Ask them what their perspective on the crime problem is from their point of view.
I think the answers you will get are not exactly what some guy on the internet is suggesting.
✓
It is the crooks that check you out and think they have an easy target – usually a small group of guys in an SUV – they stalk you first. Definitely not homeless folks
I’ve ridden through Delta Park and the I 5 many time since I moved to Vancouver in 2018. The biggest issue for me is the homeless going the wrong way on the bridge – so far there’s only been one bomber that I had to do a passing on the bridge – this homeless guy going the wrong way bombed the bridge path as I was climbing – that was stressful- then I’ve had to play chicken twice through Delta Park with drunk/drugged out people. I just stop and we end up face to face – they’re too wasted to do anything. I am carrying a Kryptonic motorcycle cable over my shoulder to use as my bike lock – it’s a pain, but it’s instant access to basically a blunt force weapon at the end of a cable – so far so good.
Yes, so should your bike. Very handy if you don’t like running into things in the dark (it’s also the law).
I am concerned about safety of everyone, even those not using lights, as many don’t.
(And I’m not even sure if lights are required when riding on a bike path).
I think it’s pretty clear that cars driving in the same space as bicycles is dangerous for cyclists, otherwise the bike-only paths wouldn’t exist in the first place and we’d always ride in the road with cars.
This isn’t true on greenways, for example; but regardless, the question is not whether cars on bike paths are dangerous, but whether they are more dangerous than bollards in the middle of the path would be.
Gee, falling off a bike after hitting a bollard at 15 mph or getting crushed by a two-ton vehicle at 40 mph. I wonder which is more dangerous! At least we have those greenways, where cars are never a danger to bicyclists apparently.
I’ve never seen a car driving at 40 on a MUP, but I’ve ridden past tons of bollards. Frequency of encounter is an important factor.
But like I said, absent data, comparing danger is just rank speculation and vibes.
A witness reported a driver going over 40 mph on the Springwater Corridor in May. The car only stopped when it hit [checks notes] a bollard at the trail entrance.
Please explain how “frequency of encounter” is a factor in the dangerousness of bollards versus cars. I encounter way more pigeons than crocodiles on a daily basis. Does that mean pigeons are more dangerous than crocodiles?
I remember that. All I said was the frequency of me passing bollards (often) far exceeds the frequency of me seeing people driving in a car at 40 MPH on a bike trail.
If I pass a bollard that has a 1% chance of injuring me 100 times, the likelihood of injury is far greater than that of encountering a car driving 40 mph that has a 50% chance of injuring me that I never encounter. (These probabilities are not real, just illustrative of the math.)
You can calculate the dangers of pigeons vs crocodiles using this formula:
chance of injury = 1−(1−p)^n
where p is the probability of injury on each encounter, and n is the number of times you are exposed to it.
I’m sure if you spend a few minutes with a calculator or spreadsheet you can see how the frequency of encounter (n) impacts overall chance of injury.
So what you’re saying is that in your experience riding “past tons of bollards” you’ve never hit one of those bollards?
That’s true. I’ve had a couple of close calls with bollards and other dark obstacles over the years, but I’ve never had the misfortune to hit one. Nor do I personally know anyone who has.
That is not what you said, but anyway, my chance of being mauled by a polar bear is exactly zero according to your formula, since zero is the number of times I have ever been exposed to one.
Likewise, my chance of stubbing my toe on my refrigerator is somewhere close to 1. The only conclusion I can draw from your argument here is that my refrigerator is more dangerous than a polar bear. Have I got that right?
Yes, in your situation, but I don’t think I’d be worried about refrigerator doors or polar bears, just as I’m not worried about getting hit by a car on a greenway or bike path. It could happen, but a lot of things could happen. I’ve got a life to lead.
So we’ve gone from “I am concerned about safety of everyone” to “I’m not worried”. I guess the fact that two-thirds of cyclist fatalities in 2022 involved a motor vehicle collision is not a cause for concern.
I wrote that we should not rush in to solve one safety problem by creating another safety problem based on vibes, but that we should instead rely on data. You responded by talking about pigeons, crocodiles, polar bears, and refrigerator doors.
I also wrote that I personally do not consider people driving on greenways or on bike paths a significant threat to my safety, but I never said anything about a lack of concern about people dying on their bikes.
Obviously, you’re trying to pick a fight with me, and since what I actually say is factually correct and pretty reasonable, you’re resorting to challenging me for things I didn’t say.
I’m here because I like to discuss ideas with people who have different outlooks than I do. I like being challenged, but I really do prefer it when people do so intelligently and in a way that lets me see more possibility. It therefore helps when those people are grounded in reality.
The data shows that riding on greenways is not particularly dangerous. If you disagree, tell me why. That 928 bicyclists died nationally in a crash involving a motor vehicle in 2022, while tragic, has no bearing whatsoever on the safety of Portland’s greenways. Again, if you disagree, tell me why.
I’m a prolific commentor here. Surely you can find something I’ve actually said to disagree with.
Your comment “I’m not worried about getting hit by a car on a greenway or bike path” was in the context of discussing “the actual danger of people driving on bike paths” (your words). Do you not see how saying you’re not personally worried could be read as dismissive, especially after framing the issue as relating to the safety of everyone?
I used polar bears as a deliberately absurd example (reductio ad absurdum) to show that just because something is encountered infrequently does not make it inherently safer, just as something encountered frequently is not necessarily more dangerous. In a discussion about whether something is “inherently unsafe” (your words again), you responded that yes, my refrigerator could be more dangerous than a polar bear. Doesn’t that seem a little silly?
I specifically said that two-thirds of cyclist fatalities involve motor vehicles (928÷1,360 = 68.2% or just over two-thirds). That says something about the relative dangers of cars vs. stationary objects like bollards. It should have been obvious that the exact number of fatalities was irrelevant.
If riding on greenways is not particularly dangerous, that’s precisely because there are fewer cars and they drive slower. Could it be that people are deliberately discouraged from driving on greenways because mixing bicycles and motor vehicle traffic is dangerous, something which you categorically stated was not true? If a greenway suddenly became a popular route for many people to drive their cars fast, would it even be a greenway anymore?
No, I don’t. I’m not personally worried. How does that invalidate your personal worries?
What exactly does that say about the relative danger of cars driving on Portland’s bike paths vs the danger of placing bollards on them? Are cars on our bike paths more of a threat? Are the bollards? Or does your statistic about nationwide bike fatalities tell us nothing at all about the question?
Again with the misrepresentation of what I said. I did not say that it is categorically untrue that cars and bikes mixing was dangerous; what I said was that it is not true that cars and bikes mixing was categorically dangerous and offered greenways as a counter-example. Do you see the difference?
“I’m here because I like to discuss ideas with people who have different outlooks than I do. I like being challenged, but I really do prefer it when people do so intelligently and in a way that lets me see more possibility. It therefore helps when those people are grounded in reality.”
Paragraph of the week!!
Do you mean to say that car drivers are not a danger to people riding bikes on Portland greenways? Because that is what it looks like.
I would say it’s mundane to have a greenway encounter with a motor vehicle that requires steering or braking to avoid contact, except that mundane is not a word I generally use in the context of a death sport.
Apparently the same drivers who carelessly blast their cars down bike paths are completely stymied by a normal residential street with one of these signs next to it:
(Image credit: NACTO)
“Do you mean to say that car drivers are not a danger to people riding bikes on Portland greenways? ”
Generally speaking, they’re not. I’ve ridden a lot of hours on a lot of greenways and simply do not recognize your description. I believe they are quite safe.
I feel no need to convince you, but I think the available data supports my experience.
We are not in fact talking about the same greenways.
I don’t have ‘data’ because I’m not a spreadsheet person or even a journaler. How many anecdotes are required before, ok, it’s data?
I’ve spent thousands of hours riding close to cars. I call something a conflict if I have to change my line to avoid contact with a vehicle that does not have right of way. That can happen anywhere on NE Going. I don’t recall more than three false stops in one day but I’m starting to recognize the cars.
From a block away I watched my roomie go over the hood of a Mercedes at NE 26th and Going. How many separated shoulders before it’s data?
I saw one particular Subaru blow the stop by the LDS church at 40 mph (est) two different times. That is a favorite stop sign for bike riders to miss out, usually downhill. The sight line to the W is poor, so what.
It’s unsafe for me to ride 20 mph on NE Going because the common velocity of cars across the crosswalk, limited viewing angles, and my reaction time make it too close to accept the consequences.
I can usually tell if a driver is sketch by the sound of their tires and some other anecdotal shit but any person in an SUV with a kid in the back can clean your clock and their first clue is when your head hits the windshield.
I’ve ridden on SE 39th in a thunderstorm and I used to commute on MLK. NE Going St is unequivocally the most dangerous street I ride on in Portland. If we’re going to load up a bunch of bikey messaging on a street it shouldn’t be banally dangerous.
Give me steel bollards for $800 or whatever it is they cost.
I’ll grant you that it is possible that people drive differently in N/NE Portland than they down here in SE, and that could account for our different perceptions.
The data show that cyclists are rarely killed on greenways anywhere in the city. I’ll further grant you there is no data about having to hit your brakes because someone turns in front of you. We might disagree about whether that represents rudeness or actual danger.
Regardless, I feel quite safe on greenways, and I am genuinely sorry that you don’t. If I felt the way you do, I’d probably stop riding, so I’ll credit you with greater bravery.
I’ve biked this path nearly every weekday for the past two years and have probably encountered 12-15 people driving on this MUP. It’s so deeply unsettling, because the bike path is the one place where you are not prepared to turn the corner and have headlights coming at you.
The issue used to be quite a bit worse before ODOT added the boulders beneath the freeway overpass between Delta Park and Jantzen Beach; before that, this area functioned as an informal vehicle demolition/parts scrapping pad/place to burn wires & plastic, so people were always driving vehicles there for ‘service’.
In recent memory, there’s been an abandoned motorized shopping cart, burned out car, and an ODOT maintenance vehicle lurking around that blind downhill curve.
Last year, we met friends in downtown Vancouver and had to cut the trip short because there were a dozen people in various trancelike or stuporous states. I see people living outside and/or on hard drugs on a daily basis, but this *really* rustled my jimmies.
And of course I’ll never forget the hero who painted directional arrows on these paths, only for ODOT to suddenly announce that it was going to post wayfinding signs for the confusing paths it built several decades ago.
It’s always something down there, and I just can’t fathom why anybody in this city wants a robust off-street network when this is what we always seem to get.
Yes I’ve encountered this more than once with motorcycles. No it wasn’t a confused motorist. I was intentional use as an way to avoid the traffic on the bridge.
I’ve said that I expect to die walking out for a six pack but maybe it’ll be playing chicken with a motorcycle on a bike path. I don’t have any particular strong feelings about motorcycles and I’m a bit off a scofflaw myself, but let them split lanes.
Just posted this update:
UPDATE, July 12th, 8:30 am: A reader told me he reported a missing bollard onto this path (at Marine Drive and Union Court) to the Oregon Department of Transportation. According to an email from Katherine Wentzel from the Ask ODOT office on April 5th, 2023, “Maintenance staff shared they are having ongoing issues with the bollards being stolen or at times ran over. Staff is exploring options for better bollards or a fix to the problem and do not have plans to reinstall them at this time.”
—
So as I suspected, fixing this problem is just not a high priority for ODOT.
The Oregon Depart Of Roads will muster a fleet of trucks and tractors in response to any situation that affects motor vehicle access. Their crews will work through the dark moving a mountain until the asphalt is rolled out and cars are fully up to speed.
It’s pretty telling that in this case they aren’t giving even lip service to safe bicycle and pedestrian access. All it needs now is for PBOT to tell us “we’re complaint driven” and a police officer to say “exchange information, my work is done.”
just not a high priority for ODOT.
Maybe they can take some staff off the team that goes around putting up CROSSING CLOSED signs all over the city.
And this is the same agency that, when I asked why they woke up thousands of people on a Sunday at dawn, doing median landscaping that didn’t really need it, and was always done midday before, told me they HAD to do it then “because of the track meet”. I told them I’m a track fan and there were no track meets in Portland that day. ODOT replied that the track meet was in Eugene, but people attending it might be driving from Portland, and ODOT wanted to make a good impression for them in case they’d be driving past the median.
This is pretty typical with ODOT. They love splurging on NEW projects. Very profitable for privately owned PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTORS who do construction work for the state. Once it’s built and running, they just let it get destroyed.
Didn’t ODOT complain about citizens painting a warning line over pothole or bump?
ODOT complained about We Heart Portland’s fence at NW 15th & Burnside to keep out illegal activity and promptly found time and resources to undermine their preventive effort. Illegal activities returned, and they sit back and cavalier response like usual returned.
Part of the problem is the unforced error of PBOT, Portland Parks, etc doing maintenance on MUPs with motor vehicles, like ¾ ton pickups. The consequence is that bollards are often missing, or easily defeated as a result of planned regular operations.
Cargo bikes or trikes with e assist and heavy duty trailers are available from several manufacturers. A city committed to increasing mode share and to accessible bike travel can do this. The cost is small compared to building infrastructure and no doubt we are buying vehicles all the time anyway.
Nitpick: Trains can’t be “steered.”
Chuck Norris can steer trains.
What about trespasser intrusion into “nobody allowed” area of bike and pedestrian bridge that resulted in a fire and damaged the Flanders Crossing? Any idea when exactly that fire happened or if there’s any deterioration of seismic resiliency?
Are you talking about the fire aboard the MV Flanders ferry in Newfoundland? Duckduckgo doesn’t seem to know anything about a fire under the Ned Flanders Bridge. Neither does the BP search function.
Ok it was on Reddit, beg your pardon. We know that a burning tanker truck of petroleum product can bring down a freeway overpass. I doubt if a campfire or even a runaway propane stove would, and the damage appeared to be on a railing. Portland is saved.
There was more questionable things underneath.
That bridge is designed to handle a magnitude 9 earthquake, and be able to carry emergency vehicles like fire engines.
If steel is exposed to fire, it can lose its temper.
I seriously doubt it affects the ability to carry bikes and foot traffic, but I feel unsure if the bridge still maintains the same mechanical properties for resisting earthquake and being able to carry emergency vehicles after a quake at the same level as designed.
There’s been no details about when or how this fire happened and I’ve only seen the aftermath.
“If steel is exposed to fire, it can lose its temper.”
Frankly, I don’t blame it. If I get too hot, I’m prone to lose my temper as well.
You can see that slats under the surface have buckled and the structural beams have discolored from heat exposure.
Given that driving on bike paths seems to be becoming common, bollards and similar protection strategies deserve a lot more attention from agencies managing the paths.
The article focused on the need for protecting the paths, but a related issue that the comments really brought forward are the dangers (esp. the link to the Seattle bollard-crash lawsuit) of poorly designed protection.
What strikes me is how cavalierly various agencies treat path protections. Remember this one (chain strung across path by TriMet)?: https://bikeportland.org/2022/07/27/chain-across-street-leads-to-serious-injuries-for-bicycle-rider-360424
Or this one? (black fence built across path by Parks): https://bikeportland.org/2018/01/08/fence-installed-by-odot-abruptly-closes-access-to-willamette-park-at-nevada-st-263925
Crazily, the permanent design at that last one (Willamette Park entrance at S Nevada) is a guardrail across the path, painted black with no reflectors) on a joint TriMet/PBOT/Parks project that required ODOT Rail approval. Nobody in any of those four agencies, the registered engineers who designed it, or the permitting agencies, ever noticed how dangerous that is (photo attached). I tried diligently for months to comment to the project team, but was aggressively not allowed to.
People can debate various aspects of bollards and other measures, but at a minimum the agencies installing them should at least take the most basic steps (reflectors, markings, pavement markings and care locating them) to make them at least minimally safe.
The crazy was just about out of control and you had to go post a very solid comment with documentation and pictures?? 🙂
Folks, note that ODOT admonishes us to “Report unsafe road conditions to local road authorities as soon as possible”.
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/programs/tdd%20documents/oregon-bicyclist-manual.pdf
Page 11
ODOT is always happy to respond at askodot@odot.oregon.gov
Whenever you see missing bollards or other unsafe conditions, it is helpful to make a maintenance request with ODOT or PBOT.
If *many* citizens are making such requests, it will move the problem up their priority index.
Ted Buehler
They’re shutting off Ask ODOT email in three weeks.
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/pages/ask-odot.aspx
” Coming in Aug. 5 – NEW Ask ODOT Online Portal….
The Ask ODOT email address will no longer be available to submit requests. You will be directed to use the customer portal to contact staff.”
Use it while you can!
Don’t forget the various times CoP directs cars onto the Columbia Slough bike path for certain events at PIR. This practice was reported in BP in 2022 and again one late afternoon this year I encountered it, a steady stream of mostly pickups and SUVs to my great surprise as I was riding towards it. At first I thought “WTF with all these trucks cutting around on the bike path” and then I realized they were being directed there by flaggers. No signage on the trail until I got to the flaggers. Had to turn back around.
When you look at these incidents and also the conditions that have been permitted like on the I-205 bike path (don’t care what anyone claims, it still is a disaster zone in spots as of last week) – our MUPs are getting ceded.
Swift, harsh punishment is what is needed. We don’t need barriers. We have two ways to get people to play nice within society: threat of personal injury (in the form of fines, losing license, jail, etc) or encouraging people to follow the rules in a “nicer” way.
Having been in Europe, around a fair number of Americans, it was Americans I saw abusing the bike trails (using them for cars when clearly prohibited), not Europeans. The Europeans didn’t need barriers for themselves.
This culture of lawlessness and individual first needs to be reigned in.
Immediate solutions are temporary cameras at the problem locations, which are then used to prosecute the violators and a campaign to show how these people ruined their lives by putting themselves before others. And ignoring laws.
But this is the very heart of America.
I’d say individualism is one of the hearts of America. We also have a strong tradition of helping one another.
Getting on a freeway while riding a bicycle is just stupid. You really do deserve what you get if you want to tangle with something that cannot stop like you can, and consistently goes 20+ mph over the speed limit. Really, if you don’t know this…
It the area I grew up in California I had to ride on I-5 to get to places I needed too for appointments. If drivers can’t stay in their lanes while going down the freeway, they don’t have any business driving. So no, I wouldn’t “deserve” anything if I was using our roadways in a very legal way.
Nice victim blaming. A couple things:
1.) They weren’t riding a bicycle on the freeway, they were on a sidewalk next to the freeway. The sidewalk was put their specifically for pedestrians and bicyclists to use. The car was legally not supposed to be there.
2.) If people are consistently driving 20+ mph over the speed limit, isn’t that kind of a problem in itself?
What are you talking about? Drivers are the ones going onto the bike-only paths. You know, the paths designed to keep cyclists OFF the roads??
Or the MUP area along Airport Way….
NE 112th & NE Airport way which connects to ODOT MUP.
Breached bollard at sidewalk by 7-11 and gas station parking lot, and also along Airport Way on-ramp bollard missing.
PDX PBOT’s refusal to enforce unlawful vehicle trespass.
May 2024 (image by City of Portland OMF-IRP)