It’s the morning after two people were killed in fatal collisions with car drivers while bicycling on Portland streets. They both happened in northeast Portland east of I-205: one on NE Glisan near Menlo Park Elementary School around 2:30 am and the other in an industrial-zoned area of NE 105th north of Sandy Blvd at about 9:00 am.
I’ve heard a bit more details about the second collision from the Portland Police Bureau and one local TV station shared videos from the scenes — including what appears to be security video of the collision on NE Glisan — so we know a bit more about that crash as well. Two Portland City Council candidates have also come forward with a joint statement.
While I wait to learn more about what happened, let’s talk about the media coverage and response from candidates.
NE Glisan just west of NE 130th
I am grateful for local TV stations that have the capacity to send a video crew to any location in our city at any hour of the day. They also do important leg work in gathering information. But sometimes their framing is extremely bad and unhelpful. Case in point is KPTV Fox 12. Their story, “Portland biking community urges safety after 2 deadly crashes in 12 hours,” focused primarily on telling bike riders how to be more safe by gearing up with high-visibility clothing and other equipment.
That’s a fine message, but not in this context.
Prior to spending most of the segment hearing from one veteran bicycle rider (and then calling it “Portland biking community” as if one person speaks for anyone but themselves), the KPTV reporter introduced video of the hit-and-run on NE Glisan. It appears to be shot from the front yard of a house on the south side of the street between NE 130th and 128th (above). In the video — UPDATE: which I now have my own copy of — we can clearly see a man on a bike pedaling west in the general travel lane. Then a black or dark blue, two-door sports car comes flying into the frame and plows into the bike rider from behind at a very high rate of speed.
It’s notable that the bike rider didn’t appear to be using the bike lane. After reviewing video from a nearby homeowner, the impact happened just as the rider went under the pedestrian overpass. While we might never know why the rider didn’t use the bike lane, it’s important to note that Oregon law does not require a bicycle rider to use a bike lane if there’s a hazard (like debris or other obstruction), or if the rider is preparing to make a left turn. Since first posting this story, I’m now able to view the video on my own without having to rely on Fox 12 TV.
The screenshot below shows the bicycle rider about 100 feet east of the overpass. It was taken from a security camera about five seconds before impact:
One second later, this car flies into the frame. Notice how the speed of the suspect car (one the left) is so much higher than the SUV in the photo below that it’s significantly more blurred:
To see this video and then decide to spend most of the news segment telling bike riders they’d be safer with “grippy pedals” and “side lights” shows a complete misunderstanding of the issues and comes off as victim blaming. It also perpetuates the culture of irresponsible driving that is a large part of why so many vulnerable road users are killed every year.
NE 105th and Marx
According to new information from the PPB shared with BikePortland this morning, there were multiple drivers traveling southbound on NE 105th. “As one attempted to turn eastbound onto NE Marx Street, it was involved in a crash with a cyclist traveling northbound on NE 105th Avenue.”
Identities of the deceased are pending notification of kin. I hope to learn more about both of these crashes in the days and weeks to come.
Timur Ender and Steph Routh are both leading candidates to represent District 1 on Portland City Council. They also both have significant experience in the transportation space — Ender as a Portland Bureau of Transportation project manager and Routh as an executive director of nonprofit Oregon Walks (among other things). They released a join statement yesterday about these tragedies.
“This is not an academic exercise for people in District 1. Our part of town has more gun violence, more traffic deaths, and a life expectancy 10 years lower than the rest of Portland,” Ender and Routh wrote. “This is our current reality, but it doesn’t have to be our future.”
The two candidates know “public safety” is the most popular phrase on the campaign trail and they want more Portlanders to understand how road safety is a key part of it. They shared a link to a map of shootings in Portland to illustrate how they are much more frequent along fast, dangerous roads with a history of crashes.
“As we work toward a future where everyone can thrive, we must recognize that community safety includes leveraging the tools, levers, and resources of local government to extend our community’s life expectancy,” Ender and Route wrote. “We are committed to providing the political support to do that.”
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.
Please respect my family’s privacy and do not capitalize on my son’s death to further your causes. Your agenda can’t bring my son back. He was only 32 years old on his way to work. This thread is disrespectful to those of us experiencing overwhelming grief.
We hear you. Thank you for coming here to share. Our hearts are with you and your family at this time.
I ride that Glisan section often, up to 3-4 times a week and cross at the school to use the beg button at the crosswalk. It is interesting that this one works to stop traffic better most of the time I think for being at a school. More people stop on there own by far than any other I use. The other one I use is 126-7 and Stark, it is the opposite, a couple of weeks ago I was there, pressed the button, flashing lights, curb lane traffic full stop, inner lane was clear and a vehicle accelerated, est. 50-60 mph. through, there is a large apartment complex with many senior, disabled, etc. so often slow moving pedestrians with their hands full.
Always plenty of vehicles that wait till the last second to slow or stop after going well over the speed limit to begin with.
I ride with lights, cameras, front and rear, GPS and helmet 24/7 period but fully realize many don’t want and shouldn’t have to.
Most media outlets have one script for injured or killed cyclists, “be safe.” To them it seems innocuous to add this on to every crash as a way of acting like they care. They need a new set of scripts to work from and may be receptive or may take the advice of better not to say anything.
I would prefer they say, “When you’re driving, make sure you follow the law, have your vehicle in good working condition and look out for each other. This driver will have to spend the rest of their lives knowing that they killed someone by being careless. Don’t let that happen to you.”
That video was horrific no amount of lights or other safety gear would have helped that cyclist.That driver was definitely speeding and they hit the cyclist in a very well lit section of the road. There are two crosswalks there too if a pedestrian were in either of them that driver would have hit them as well. This has nothing to do with safety gear and everything to do with people that should not be allowed to drive at all.
These deaths are on the state and its ridiculously low bar to be allowed drive here and the city for not ticketing drivers for every infraction. Where are those speed and red light cameras that were supposed to be reviewed by non-police staff? Why don’t we have stricter requirements for maintaining your license? Why don’t we confiscate peoples cars when they’ve been disallowed to drive?
The cameras really bother me all that work to change the law which has now been in effect for almost two years and I don’t think anything has been done to follow through with it. They are adding some cameras (not nearly enough) but I’ve heard nothing about non-police staff reviewing them. The DMV is supposed to restrict your license if you have three tickets and/or crashes in two years time but that won’t happen if you never ticket people. How many drivers would lose their license in the next month if we actually ticketed them even for only speeding and running red lights?
There’s a lot of nuanced answers to your questions; but I think the overarching theme is that people who make those decisions are probably 1) drivers and 2) not very good ones at that. How many lawmakers have tarnished driving records? Hell, Tim Walz has a DUI. How many cops are driving their lifted pickups in from Camas? When you only ever see our streets from behind the windshield, you can only conceptualize the perspective of a driver.
I get that, what bothers me are all these well meaning politicians and government employees that say they care about road safety and even pass laws to make it better and then sit on it for two years while nothing happens.
We can’t really say this. The driver was/is obviously a sociopath for going 60-70mph, also likely while drunk on a surface street, but flashing rear lights could have made the difference here. There is no way to know for sure, but we can’t draw any hard conclusions.
Even bike utopias like the Netherlands have illumination laws, and for good reason.
https://www.guideholland.com/cycling/cycling-rules.html
Bizarre thing to say. If the driver was drunk then lights would not have helped.
A good friend was killed while driving by a drunk driver being pursued by police because the drunk drunkenly zeroed in on my friend’s headlights. So what you are saying does not show much understanding of what drunken driving actually is and how dangerous and morally repulsive it is.
Alcohol & other stuff :
Contrary as you may perhaps think, cycling after drinking alcohol is not allowed. Although less strict than for car drivers, blood alcohol level must not exceed 0,54 (for cars that’s 0,22).
Other drugs can be tested as well.
If you are caught, the fine is 110 EUR for a cyclist. And much higher costs if you cause damage, of course.
Bike paths and bike lanes :
When there’s a bike path, or a marked bike lane, you’re compelled to ride on it. Cycling on a sidewalk or pedestrian path is not allowed.
It is absolutely morally repulsive, and I take offense at your implication that I don’t find it to be repulsive. But we also don’t know the mental condition of the hit and run driver here. All of this is just wild speculation and I’m just trying to point out that fact.
As is the wild speculation that illumination would have helped. Stop victim blaming.
You have to misrepresent my words here to make your point. I never said “would”, so why are you saying I said “would have helped”?
I felt you were implying by your lengthy treatise on the value of illumination that the cyclist was at fault. As I mentioned to JohnV, I get overly sensitive on such things. I was most likely reading to much into your statement and I apologize.
It’s not bizarre at all. Drunk people are able to frequently navigate roads, turn corners, stop at most lights. What are you suggesting, that they’re able to turn on their car, drive around, navigate corners, and avoid all other obstacles but the one thing they couldn’t possibly see is a bright red bike light in the road? The sad thing is there are drunk drivers driving around town all the time, usually not hitting anyone. They’re out there. So yes, lights could have been what made a difference. Anything “could have” made a difference. A strip of retro-reflective clothing might have done it, it’s impossible to know.
Obviously that doesn’t put the blame on the cyclist. The driver is clearly at fault (drunk or not). And the framing should rightfully start there. But absolutely lights could have been the thing that caught the driver’s attention and saved a life.
You’ve defended drunk driving at length in another post as well and I am not surprised you are doubling down on it again. I’m surprised though that you are using a car centric line of reasoning that reflective lighting could have been a difference rather than the speed of the car or the mental state of the driver. If they were speeding/drunk/sociopathic/looking at their phone/drugged up or whatever or any combination of any them than a bit of light would not have mattered.
IT WAS NOT THE BICYCLIST’S FAULT FOR NOT HAVING THE “PROPER” ILLUMINATION!!
Fault in civil incidents is not a binary thing; it can be (and usually is) shared. In this case, the driver is clearly the party bearing the vast majority of fault, and their actions before (speeding) and after (leaving) are possibly criminal acts where fault is rarely a factor.
Show me where I defended drunk driving. You can’t do it. What part of “The driver is clearly at fault (drunk or not).” do you not understand? Did you read anything I wrote or just hallucinate something and respond to that?
It’s absolutely a fact, which you cannot refute, that better visibility could have been the difference. Anything could have been the difference.
No shit, that’s what “Obviously that doesn’t put the blame on the cyclist.” means. You didn’t read one word.
I think you’re right. I apologize. I was thinking of..
https://bikeportland.org/2024/01/03/someone-drove-their-suv-into-a-portlanders-living-room-then-ran-away-382857#comments
I was remembering you arguing for the right to drive drunk, but upon reading it again I’m not sure what you are arguing for. It’s not explicitly to drive drunk though so you are right.
I feel that excessive “what if” the cyclist had done something else (more lights, more reflective clothing, was not legally in the road) places blame by default on the cyclist that is not warranted.
I get overly sensitive when the reasons why the person could maybe have avoided being killed by doing something different is mentioned first and not that it was the driver’s fault. That might not be everyone’s style though so I over reacted.
What I was arguing there is that just saying “people should have more personal responsibility” is simply useless noise. That’s why Jonathan’s suggestions (for example) don’t simply end at “we need a cultural change”. There are also actions.
Well that’s fine for you to think that, and be as sensitive as you want. And the news shouldn’t be starting and ending their coverage with just that. But for your own safety, you probably use bike lights and/or reflectors, retro-reflective items, wear a helmet, ride defensively, etc. Everyone who rides *should* be doing those things (to more or less degree) – we almost all do some of them. If you don’t want to, you do you, but don’t lie and say it would have made no difference if the rider had a big bright tail light. That’s so wrong as to be dishonest.
You really need to quit accusing me of lying. You’re continuously wrong about it, it’s been tiresome and you seem to use it as a crutch in your discussions with others far too often.
I don’t think a bright tail light would have made a difference in this situation. Prove me wrong.
Wow, I’ve heard the “actually, riding without a helmet is safer” bad arguments before, but “actually, riding with no lights is safer” is a new low.
Hi Jeff,
If you read my example you might realize that I said that because if my good friend had turned his headlights off when the drunk driving fleshbag was approaching he would still be alive. So in that case yes, no lights would have been safer. If the fleshbag who drove through the cyclist was drunk (we’ll never know) then they very well could have not processed the reason why there were lights in front of them or seen the lights and focused in on them. Hence why in my opinion the focus on lights and or illumination as a matter of discussion by some posters made me initially think that it was bordering on victim blaming.
I also use a helmet mirror all the time, makes lane changes and many other situations far safer and easier to navigate.
I agree, that segment on the news about bike safety was really off-color given the horrible tragedy that occurred. Someone was murdered through the negligent actions of a driver. The least they could do is slip in “make sure to drive the speed limit and keep an eye out for people walking and biking, especially when it’s dark and rainy.”
I am confused by this, which of these pieces of “safety” equipment is the one that gets the probably drunk hit and run driver to stop after killing someone? Is it the side lights or the sticky pedals? Just one more case of someone who knows they were completely at fault fleeing the scene hoping to maybe get away with it or at least to sober up before getting caught.
I hate this. If cars can go faster than 20 mph on non-separated roadways, people are going to die. Has anyone tried suing USDOT or whoever for willfully ignoring physics? I heard drivers can sue if they damage their car on traffic calming infra, why can’t we sue for infrastructure guidelines and standards that kills people?
The message many people will get from the KPTV article will get is that the reason the bike rider died is that they irresponsibly didn’t have enough lights, reflectors,, etc.
I’m guessing that’s also KPTV’s assumption. Otherwise, why would they write their headline and construct their reporting the way they did?
People seeing that article will then get into their cars hoping they don’t have the misfortune to encounter any unsafe bike riders themselves.
If they were responsible the story would have been. A cyclist was killed by a speeding driver on a well lit road with newly added safety infrastructure. The driver did not remain at the scene. While there are lots of things cyclists can do to keep themselves safer on our roadways video footage clearly show this was not the case in this situation. Drivers need to be responsible and held accountable for their reckless actions that needlessly kill 10s of thousands of vulnerable road users and drivers nationwide.
Hey idlebytes. Just a small detail, but it may be possible to highlight the agency of people by getting rid of the passive voice. For example, “A person in a car crashed into a person on a bike.” It’s important to note that it was a decision (often associated with active voice), not just an unavoidable event or “accident” (often associated with the passive voice).
The driver made a decision to exceed the speed limit, and they made a decision to leave the scene after the crash.
I highly doubt they made a decision to kill the cyclist.
And the news left out the safety advice I gave my son when he started riding his bike to school. 1. Don’t assume cars will stop even if you have the right of way. If you are at a crosswalk, or they have a stop sign or flashing light, wait until they actually stop before going. 2. When your traffic light turns green, wait an extra second for the cars running red lights before you go. Funny that the news didn’t mention either of those.
Excellent reporting. Thank you for the research, advocacy and support.
It reminds me of when a car almost hit me when I was out running. I was coming to an intersection, started to go and then saw a car speeding towards me and could tell they weren’t going to stop. So I stopped, and took a step back. Last minute, they saw me, slammed on their breaks and stopped about a foot past a stop sign. The driver rolled down the window and then told me “you shouldn’t wear dark clothes” and then drove off. Not only was it day time, but there was no way at his speed he was planning on stopping before the stop sign anyway. But it probably made him feel better to blame me and clear his conscience.
The question I think we should be asking is why, when there was protected infrastructure available, was the rider not using it? Was it deficient in some way? Was the lane blocked by debris or a parked vehicle? How can the infrastructure be improved so that people will use it rather than ride around?
What can we learn from this that we can use to advocate for better infrastructure, and, more importantly, better outcomes?
It wasn’t actually protected by anything other than space. There is no physical protection here and even the plastic wands appear to have been missing.
Also, it’s impossible to know why the rider wasn’t in the bike lane. He might have been getting over to use the median crossing and head south on NE 128th.
Our options for how to get better outcomes are limited when we have people who drive like this person was driving. Absent building jersey-barrier protection and making sure bike riders are behind those barriers 100% of the time, I think a better approach is to crack down on terrible irresponsible drivers by treating the broken, dysfunctional driving culture we have like the emergency epidemic it is.
It looks like a parking protected bike lane, but the lack of physical barrier was not an apparent factor in the crash. Is there anything that could be done to make the infrastructure that was there more enticing? There was a signalized and marked bike crossing for making the left turn — was that inadequate? Does PBOT need to consider a better design?
The crash was absolutely the driver’s fault — they were speeding and struck the cyclist from behind, then did not stop to render aid; it seems pretty clear-cut to me. But the whole point of having bike infrastructure is to prevent tragedies like this from occurring, and understanding why that failed seems important.
I’ve never wavered from the need to crack down on dangerous driving; I’ve probably said that dozens of times on this forum, and many other places as well.
I wouldn’t call it THE question at all in this case, but you’re right it’s A question that should always be asked.
In this case–with that speed and being a hit-and-run–I could see the same outcome even if the victim had been walking or biking in the crosswalk, and in daylight.
But providing infrastructure that people don’t use–because of poor design, or because of leaves, vehicles, etc. blocking it–is a big problem, and not just because it’s therefore not protecting anyone.
It gives drivers a message that that’s where people biking will be, or where they should be, which can lead to drivers being less watchful, or resentful and entitled (“I’m not yielding or slowing for that bike when he shouldn’t even be in the road”). It also could lead to a bike rider being legally at fault if they’re injured, or having insurance payment problems.
I feel like PBOT especially often seems oblivious to those consequences of poor infrastructure, thinking something is better than nothing too often.
In a way, Jonathan’s answer to you (which I agree with, but then it sounds like you do too) is actually showing the relevance of your question. Pointing out that there’s no physical protection and wands appear to be missing could be two reasons why someone would not bother using this bike lane.
“Pointing out that there’s no physical protection and wands appear to be missing could be two reasons why someone would not bother using this bike lane.”
That makes no sense. If nothing else, the bike lane is buffered by an 8-ft or wider separation from vehicle traffic. If some of the wands are missing, why would that cause someone to ride out in the vehicle lane? Your theory offers no reason why someone would be or feel safer in the car lane than in the bike lane.
Geez, I was trying to support your comment.
I know you were, but the ending went wrong somewhere :-).
My fear is that incidents like this will undermine the case for protected bike lanes (or whatever we’re calling this apparently inadequate facility) altogether, with PBOT engineers concluding “we build them the infrastructure they ask for and they still won’t use it”.
This should indicate that purely parking-protected lanes are insufficient; if there aren’t any cars parked at the time, there’s no protection.
I think in a lot of cases, the best solution is to do things to reduce average vehicle speeds so that drivers have more time to react to any kind of hazard. Using more roundabouts to break up long stretches of arrow-straight roads is my first thought.
Why? The driver didn’t enter the bike lane, so the presence of physical barriers would not have changed what happened, unless, I suppose, they “walled in” the bicyclist so they could leave the bike lane.
I’m all for reducing vehicle speeds, but I don’t think there’s room for roundabouts on this street.
It may not have been obvious that that’s what all the paint striping is for. Especially if you’re new to the neighborhood, or the city–or new the state or country–or just a novice enough biker, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to imagine that maybe this person didn’t know there was a bike lane; mixed traffic cycling is very normal in a lot of places. That’s just speculation, but what else are we to do, given the circumstances?
You’re probably right about the roundabout in this situation; the probable need for school bus access at this spot makes it even tougher. I just can’t get over that this street is straight for eight miles. No wonder people drive fast on it.
The driver passed even the current very slack standard for violation of the vulnerable road user law: they killed a person and left the scene. That’s what you have to do to be adjudicated as “reckless” in Oregon in 2024.
So, JM, how exactly do you propose we do this? What practical and politically feasible steps do we need to take?
What would a crack down look like to you?
thanks for asking. We need to change the culture around driving and that starts with cleaning up the rampant lawlessness and doing more “broken windows” policing as it applies to driving. We should have a special enforcement unit that targets illegal parking, folks who drive with tinted windows, folks who have a certain amount of unpaid violations/parking tickets, folks who drive w/o a visible license plate, and so on. We also need to make bad driving much harder to do via our road designs. And we need to seriously ramp up our photo enforcement capacity so folks know if they go fast or run red lights they will have to deal with a citation. I’d also like to see more public acknowledgment from PBOT/ODOT/The County/City Hall that this is a major epidemic and that “public safety” isn’t just about cops and homeless and guns, but about people who drive like assholes without any respect for anyone else’s safety.
So you are voting for Drumpf and Gonzalez, right???
How exactly is “illegal parking” related to driving at homicidal speeds while likely under the influence?
Something I’m curious about that’s completely off topic. Why do you consider referring to Trump as “Drumpf” (the family name back in the 17th century) to be a sign of disdain? You’re not the only one who does this, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
It’s something John Oliver started. Make Donald Drumpf Again.
Yeah, I’d say poor choice in using “broken windows” like that.
Illegal parking doesn’t relate to homicidal speeds, but it does do things like block a bike lane and force riders into the main road, block visibility at intersections, and generally just cater to driving.
Illegal parking. I was hit last month minutes after leaving my house one morning. I turned off my street, west onto Boise. A guy driving east wanted to park in front of his north side of the street house. With the rising sun in his eyes he moved from the south side of Boise to the north side so he could park and walk as few feet as possible. But I was headed west on Boise when he made his move. “I can’t see you, the sun is in my eyes”, was his excuse. I believe that, he surely couldn’t see me! He shouldn’t have been driving in my lane, sun or not. If Portland had any sort of parking enforcement with any teeth, Portland drivers wouldn’t think you could park anywhere, any time in any way that was what was deemed most convenient to them and them only.
Zero parking enforcement gets you this kind of parking that I walked by the other afternoon.
It might make an interesting story to talk about how and why your thinking has evolved on the need for (presumably armed) police to crack down on minor traffic violations over the past couple of years.
Personally, I’d really like to see a safety inspection as part of updating plate registration. Check for tinted windows, missing front plates, and other public safety issues beside just the smog test. Then other enforcement can focus more on the plate registration and driving behaviors.
This would be a great start, that’s for sure.
How large would this unit be and how do you propose the city pays for it?
Culture change is a big, complicated thing. It often can’t be imposed top-down or by punishment. There’s something to the “broken windows” idea that people mirror what they see around them; maybe they’d be more likely to drive carelessly if they see an automotive landscape that looks careless. And there’s something to the idea that people really resent obvious unfairness — perhaps that they follow the rules and pay the fees and watch others drive without plates, drive with illegal vehicle mods, and run red lights — and the resentment leads to decreased social trust and more selfish, anti-social behavior.
But there’s a question of how far we’re willing to go, and how quickly, in trying to instigate this change through punitive law enforcement. It’s especially tough when the unfairness and visible antisociality preferred by the rich (i.e. giant luxury trucks designed to intimidate everyone else on the road) is protected by law at state and national levels and there’s not much any city can do about it. Immediate enforcement of the stuff that is against the law, even the behaviors most people loathe, like driving without plates, is going to come down hardest on poor people and could cause more resentment and backlash than satisfaction. Actually getting to the cultural change we want would take time and cultural work done with cultural competence. I’m sure some people will say they don’t have sympathy for vehicular scofflaws, but… culture isn’t always fair and it isn’t a black-and-white thing.
One thing you mention in the main text is the TV news story. SD’s excellent comment points out what a message focused on driver responsibility might say. If a news station put out that message it would reflect and promote a better, more responsible culture on the roads. Even then, who watches TV news? Not a whole lot of young people. Getting these kinds of messages in front of people that need to hear them most seems really hard. When I heard people talk about cultural change and then move immediately to policing I think, “Is culture so atomized that the only thing we all share is the fear of punishment?” I hope not.
Anyone who grew up during the era of “just say no to drugs” knows that cultural change cannot be manufactured and it doesn’t really matter what the TV news says. It didn’t matter then, and it matters a whole lot less now.
I agree there is an epidemic of traffic violence, and it’s much bigger than just the statistics collision statistics reflect; how many “close calls” do regular cyclists experience nearly daily? There is no war on cars, only a war waged by cars and their drivers. The solutions or myriad and complex, but they need to be prioritized and memorialized with specific demands of our elected officials and bureaucrats. The only way that will happen is if the constituency that cares is perceived to have political power. I’m unclear on what organizations are effectively developing and advocating for an end to traffic violence and building that political power.
I’d add to the list of enforcement needs: Proof of Insurance more often than just when renewing license plates. More than 10 percent of drivers in Oregon are estimated not to have insurance. Imagine how nice it would be to remove 10 percent of the cars from our streets.
I personally know three bicyclists hit by motorists without insurance. Not only does it suck to be hit, but having to fight to get any compensation compounds the problems. It’s not what you need when dealing with the physical and emotional recovery.
It’s not intellectually honest to refer to infrastructure marked by paint and pieces of plastic as “protected”. Have you observed the half-life of a flexible delineator on city streets? They’re tun over so frequently theat to be considered well maintained any metric infrastructure using them would require bi-weekly inspection/maintenance to replace the ones damaged by various motor vehicles. The constant damage to plastic delineators and wear on road paint in places that motor vehicles shouldn’t be driving is why so many people here want heavy concrete barriers between them and negligently operated motor vehicles.
Right, except no one is enforcing the rule that cyclists (in Oregon) must use a bicycle facility if its available, which it in fact was in this case, so no matter how strong you make the barriers AND keep the lanes clear of debris, if the cyclist chooses to drive in the car lanes with the cars, how do you make the street safe for all users?
It’s much less intellectually honest to believe that there is any likelihood of heavy concrete barriers protecting any meaningful amount of bike infrastructure, so the reality that any lateral separation is better than being in the traffic lane persists.
Is a parking protected bike lane no longer considered “protected”? Even when there are no cars present there is a very very generous buffer between car traffic and bike traffic.
Could you describe to me what “protected” now means?
https://www.nycstreetdesign.info/geometry/protected-bike-lane
Really feels like the goalposts are being moved here. Apparently, only 3ft high concrete barriers count now?
The lane needs to be wide enough that a special street sweeper can go through, but that an idiot driver with a compact car cannot.
And don’t forget all those driveways, pedestrian crossings, and so on – if you have bollards, you’ll need to put them in all those gaps – or maybe put a 2-way protected median down the middle of the suicide turn lane and have bicycle express lanes?
That was what SF did on Valencia. They’re switching it back after lots of criticism from both businesses and cyclists
https://missionlocal.org/2024/06/valencia-center-bike-lane-to-move-curbside/
They also did on Penn Avenue in DC, it’s still there.
With respect to what could have been different in design on Glisan, maybe it’s relevant that Portland’s TSP doesn’t allow for new speed cushions, speed tables, or raised crosswalks on Transit Access streets or Major Emergency Response streets if they are classified as District Collectors or higher—which means they weren’t considered as part of the East Glisan Street Update project.
There are tradeoffs with transit service and emergency response times but I’m not sure we’re getting the balance right, especially at school crossings.
I’m going to ride out to both fatality locations Thursday morning. Leaving at 10:00 from the Laurelhurst Park restrooms. Call or text if you’d like to go with me, and can meet up along the way or at the locations themselves. Be at Glisan and 128th at 10:45, 105th and Marx at 11:30.
Sometimes you can learn something by visiting the locations.
Ted Buehler
503-890-0510
Thanks for doing this Ted. Wish we could put ghost bikes up.
Ted, sorry I couldn’t join you, 20 miles seems to be my limit these days, and my apartment is currently 2,800 miles away and no longer at SE 105th & Pine. How did the ride go? I’m curious, was there a lot of debris in the west-bound bike lane on the north side of Glisan? How about buildings, trees, and shrubbery blocking drivers’ views at 105th & Marx?
He was riding in the general travel lane despite having a dedicated bike lane right next to him and He was riding at night without lights. If the car was going slower than maybe he wouldn’t have died but he still would have gotten hit and that’s the end of the discussion. There is a reason we separate the modes of travel and we don’t need to rush to defend every single bike rider when they are killed or injured by cars, sometimes its just their fault and that’s okay.
How many people are you comfortable killing because it was “their fault.”