Welcome to the week. It’s a strange, confusing, and concerning time as the Trump Administration runs wild over our government and institutions. As we continue to understand how he will impact our country, this week’s roundup should help you learn what’s going on with transportation policy and beyond.
Trump and transportation: Biggest story of the week is what the impact of the Trump Administration will be on transportation policy and projects. David Zipper has a solid look at what’s going on and what cities can do about it. (Fast Company)
Trump doing Trump things: President Donald Trump’s zeal for upending everything he thinks liberals like has led to a funding freeze of road safety grants. (Streetsblog USA)
Social engineering: The US DOT under Trump has floated a memo that would tie transportation funding to very specific demographic statistics including giving priority to places with high birth rates. But yeah let’s talk about how bike lanes are social engineering. (Construction Dive)
Boring Tunnel is actually, well, boring: Noted transit expert Jarrett Walker has long been skeptical of Elon Musk’s “Vegas Loop” and using it for the first time has only strengthened that skepticism. (Human Transit)
Same ol’, same ol’?: After off-road cycling advocates spent six years of working in good faith to successfully gain access to trails on Mt. Tam (the birthplace of mountain biking) in California, a few conservation groups have filed a lawsuit to prevent it from happening. It’s the same playbook of stalling and NIMBYism every damn time and it’s getting old. “Liberate Mt. Tam” is the very fitting riders’ battle cry. (Outside)
Humans make the difference: Turns out that when people put their bodies on the line, it inspires change. Protesting gets the goods, says a new study that looked at People Protected Bike Lanes. (Streetsblog SF)
Speed limit(ers): You won’t agree to speed limiting technology in every car? Fine. How about requiring them in the car of people with a history of reckless and fast driving? That’s what a bill in the Washington Legislature aims to do. (Washington Standard)
Thanks to everyone who sent in links this week. The Monday Roundup is a community effort, so please feel free to send us any great stories you come across.
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.
Is there really a true need to exceed the speed limit “for safety reasons”? The idea that a driver can reduce risk to safety by speeding up rather than by slowing down has got to be rooted in fantasy that we all live in an action movie where any driver is capable of getting out of traffic trouble by pushing the pedal to the metal. I wonder what credible studies might show about the effects on safety both of the people inside and out of the car by an average driver’s choice to accelerate beyond the posted speed limit to get out of a jam.
Imagine trying to escape the LA wildfires but your geofenced electric car wags its finger and says “Sorry, this street is limited to 20mph. Also due to decreased visibility and high ambient temperature, the maximum allowed speed is 12mph”
I guess you didn’t see the photos and videos of the gridlocked streets in the Pacific Palisades. Similar situation in the Paradise fire several years ago. The residential streets don’t have capacity for every single person to try to drive away simultaneously. Doesn’t matter if your car is capable of accelerating from zero to ludicrous speed in half a second flat if the road is choked full of other cars.
I imagine some parts were gridlocked, and others were not.
I imagine that excessive speed would not have been necessary for anyone who was fleeing the fire on a street that wasn’t gridlocked. The number of lives that would be saved by automatic speed controls would vastly outnumber those saved by unlimited speed (which is probably zero).
This is not what was being discussed above, which was an “is there ever any drawback” conversation. Yes, there are drawbacks. And yes, the benefits almost certainly outweigh the costs.
Both are true.
Imagine you’re a felon who isn’t legally allowed to own a gun and you get mugged by someone using a gun. Look at that, anyone can make up a far-fetched scenario where you <i>totally</i> “need” the thing you showed you can’t use responsibly!
Imagine you live in a country that thinks electric cars are a viable solution to climate extinction when climate fire after climate fire have started because of electricity infrastructure.
Actually, you don’t have to imagine it. You’re living (AND DYING) in it!
Which country is that? People who follow the science know that electrifying transport is a necessary part of fighting climate change but is not in itself a solution. Meanwhile, here in the US, there are many who still think EVs are not necessary.
Sorry sir, this is a Wendy’s / bike blog. If you want to complain about electric cars, Facebook is thataway.
Good plan, a bunch of panicked people who are already poor at guaging risk should go really fast – that’s never going ot result in a crash that completely closes roads.
Your hypothetical presumes some modification of geofenced limits due to conditions; so presumably, you could also see “Emergency Status: Your Speed is Unrestricted Within Evacuation Areas- Please Use Extreme Caution When Evacuating.”
For the other 99.99% of the time where we’re not evacuating a natural disaster, geofenced speed limits make lots of sense. Shall I recount the many times my kids and I have been passed by someone driving 10mph above the limit while we’re riding on a narrow residential street, or how many times I’ve been punish-passed while driving a few mph above the limit on Powell or some other arterial?
This is essentially what Tesla did during Hurricane Irma — they extended the battery range of vehicles in the impacted area to assist in evacuation.
Lots of people assume that their excessively powerful motor could save them without any evidence to prove it. Similar fallacy applies to concealed carry gun permits. The number of people that carry weapons that ever use them in self defense is vanishingly small compared to the number of permits issued. But when surveyed, the number of people who claim to have used weapons in defense is exponentially higher than the number of actual reported cases (like orders of magnitude higher).
Ever been stuck behind a vehicle you were pretty sure was being driven by a drunk, or someone whose trailer seems a bit out of control or has an improperly tied load, or a truck swerving in the wind? Getting ahead of them can be safer than lingering behind and waiting for a Russian dash cam video to happen.
Those aren’t every day things, but I’ve experienced them all multiple times. Of course, I could also just pull over and wait 20 minutes like I’m sure you would, so I suppose you’ll define that as “not a true need” but whatever.
Quite the strawman scenario that you “whatevered” your way out of at the end there. You don’t have to pull over for 20 minutes; you just have to maintain a safe following distance–which you should already be doing at all times and in all places.
The question was “is there ever” and the answer is yes.
If you believe you’ve proved the “yes” that you’re asserting, you’re utterly mistaken. Try again.
I think you are saying it is never safe to pass a vehicle with an unstable load or one that is swerving, and that the only reasonable action ever is to hang back. I’ll let others who have experience driving in the real world judge whether this is true or whether there are in fact occasions where it makes more sense to pass a problematic vehicle.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying you shouldn’t exceed the speed limit because you want to pass anybody, and you’ve provided zero evidence to the contrary. I have plenty of experience driving, which is part of the reason I’ve chosen to use a bike whenever possible. And I choose not to speed. EVER. It happens accidentally, rarely, and only by 2 or 3 MPH, on downhills. But not speeding is a choice I’ve made that you should make as well, if you actually care about the safety of yourself and others on the roadways.
It sounds like that’s exactly what you’re saying. You said you would never EVER exceed the speed limit (except by accident, but only on hills, and then only just a little bit). That means you would not pass a vehicle if it required exceeding the speed limit in order to do so, suggesting you would hang back, which is what I wrote above.
What part did I get wrong?
Lol, yeah. “Have you ever tailgated someone who was driving dangerously? Passing them at double the speed limit is the safe solution. Really makes ya think.”
Ridiculous comment.
Okay, you’ve been stuck behind unsafe vehicles multiple times. And yet, here you are. You lived to tell the tale.
An alternative to pulling over for twenty(!) minutes would be slowing down a little bit and allowing some distance to grow between your vehicle and the dangerous driver.
Yes, I “lived to tell the tale” because I didn’t linger behind an unsafe vehicle.
I’m sure you would always hang back in the situations I described, but I will often pass if it is safe to do so.
I don’t know, man. I saw t his documentary once where these people were following a log truck and the logs came loose, going through the windshield and killing the occupants of the vehicle. I think it was called Final Destination or something.
Hahaha
Thanks for the example. I had several similar examples in mind when I made my original comment. Yes, I might choose to zoom my vehicle past an erratic driver; does that additional speed improve safety or rather add to the danger? I don’t follow your fears of Russian cameras justifying excessive speed. If I slow down, I may also avoid the danger without speeding. That might require me to exercise more patience and self-restraint, as would stopping for 20 minutes. I am most interested in whether speeding ever really improves safety broadly defined to include not only my own safety but also everyone around. As to the question of “need”, I do mean it as an honest question… Does my desire to continue quickly past a perceived danger really rise to the level of a need to speed for safety reasons? If I am honest, I think my speeding in this scenario may relieve me of concern about the danger if it doesn’t embroil me in a crash, but it’s probably not a need and neither does it actually improve safety for me, for my passengers, or for bystanders.
Are there credible studies that would support or counter my thinking here that speeding does not improve safety and so should not be enshrined in law as a recognized need?
The answer to that depends entirely on circumstance. Looking for a blanket answer in the comments section of an online bike blog will not yield satisfactory results.
As for “need”, well, that is in the eye of the beholder. I would urge caution: telling others what they do and don’t “need” can come off as exceedingly condescending.
You mean like how your telling us that we don’t need you to drive at a safe speed comes off as condescending?
Is misrepresenting my statements the only way you think you can “win”?
Right back atcha, chief!
Yes. And I went by. And I got in a crash because I *SHOULD* have pulled way back and never tried to go by.
As you discovered, it’s not always safe to pass. That doesn’t mean it’s never safe to pass.
Sorry, just because you get away with risky behavior doesn’t make it not risky.
Passing in situations where the vehicle you’re passing poses a danger exposes you to much higher risk than backing off.
The reward for risky behavior (getting to the next slowdown a bit faster) is simply not worth it and is absolutely not a valid argument against enforced speed limits.
I fully agree. Did someone say it was? In case it wasn’t clear from the hundreds of posts I’ve made over the years saying so, I strongly support enforcing speed limits and other laws against unsafe driving practices.
This is sometimes true, and sometimes not. It depends on the totality of the circumstances. Passing a vehicle can be risky. It is not accurate to say that vehicles can never be passed safely.
Driving always entails an element of risk, as does everything in life. “Safe” in this context means “tolerably low risk”; it does not mean “no risk at all”. Even staying home entails some element of risk.
You’re trying to change the argument from passing a dangerous vehicle to all passing.
Passing in the situation you outlined above is *ALWAYS* more risky than backing way off.
Yes — the real world is complicated and the best courses of action aren’t always easily identified in the moment.
Still, the scenario laid out by Watts happened to me the other day. I was driving east down I-84 (headed out to Cascade Locks to build MTB trails). Right around the Sandy River delta, I started to quickly approach a slow-moving vehicle that wasn’t maintaining a consistent lane position.
I sped up to slightly over the limit since I wanted to a) avoid being stuck behind them and becoming the driver that got rear ended when a less attentive driver failed to notice the speed differential and b) minimize the time next to them where they might side swipe me.
Put an ankle bracelet on belligerent speeders. track their speed vs posted speed limit. whenever they are +2 over the speed limit, ping their insurance company. If they are +10 over, impound their car for 72 hours.
If a person is judged to driven recklessly on multiple occasions, and especially if another person is hurt, crush their car, on film, with a reaction shot. Pay to put it on local TV.
We set such a high bar for what sort of behavior is considered dangerous that it is almost meaningless. Since people have a love affair with cars, touch something that they actually care about.
Economic necessity, you say? Let them choose between a free bus pass for a year, or a refurbished bicycle.
Funny how quickly progressivism turns to authoritarianism. Cool prison state you’re dreaming of!
Is there ever truly a need for a bicyclist to run a red light or stop sign without stopping completely? Of course not, but people do it all the time, even before that dumb law was enacted.
Why do you think it’s a dumb law?
People do it because it is safe and causes no additional risks to the rider or anyone else. The same is not true for speeding in an automobile.
As always, those assertions depend on the circumstances.
In all cases – failure to obey posted speed limits (thereby robbing yourself and others of reaction time, increasing stopping distance and increasing the damage done in a collision) decreases safety while following ORS 814.414 (that defines inproper entry of a cyclist into an intersection controlled by a stop sign) demonsttrably improves safety for the cyclist and everyone else using the intersection.
Remember the cyclist is still required to slow to a safe speed, yield ot traffic within or close to the itnersection, exercise due care to avoid a collision and come to a complete stop to allow pedestrians to cross.
Are you really arguing that there exists no set of circumstances where driving faster than the speed limit, even by a small amount for a short period, can be done without imposing increased risk on other people?
I am not arguing against the Idaho stop — I think it’s a good addition to our traffic laws. It can be less safe than stopping at a stop sign, but the benefits usually justify the increased risk.
No, it is only less safe *IF YOU DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW*.
Just like riding on sidewalks, if you actually follow the law you are not less safe.
Not all traffic laws increase safety, but I’d argue that these 2 are very well designed to increase safety.
And yes, increasing speed always decreases safety. Maybe by a very small margin, but it always decreases time, increases stopping distance and increases KE in a crash.
“only less safe *IF YOU DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW*.”
So exceeding the speed limit to pass is safe in Washington, where going above the speed limit to pass is legal, but unsafe in Oregon, where it is not? That doesn’t make sense.
Clearly there is some gap between the set of things that are safe and the set of things that are legal. This makes perfect sense when you consider that the rules have to be a bit conservative to account for less experienced drivers, ill maintained vehicles, etc.
I believe there are occasions, rare as they may be, when it is safe to exceed the speed limit to execute a pass, even though it is illegal in Oregon. If you believe those situations only exist in Washington, that’s fine.
And while it might seem that having a lower KE is always safer, we should evaluate that claim at night on I-5 driving at a safer 45 mph as everyone is passing us at 70.
Driving is exceptionally situational.
Stop pulling out of context please.
That was referring to ORS 814.414.
Ok, sorry. I don’t know which traffic laws you view as critical for safety and which you don’t — your message was not at all clear on what you were referring to.
I’m going to leave it here: Driving is an enormously complex endeavor, which requires judgement and entails risk, and much depends on the vehicle and driver and conditions and condition of the driver and so on, so questions like “is it safe to pass” are necessarily highly under-specified, and are particularly ill-suited to a discussion in a bike forum.
On matters like this, the answer to “is it ever” questions is usually “yes”.
The speed interlock one is interesting except for this clarifier: it will only be fore “people with a history of reckless and fast driving”. So, we’ll wait until they kill a few people before implementing it? How about software that locks the speed limit if you show a history of speeding whether or not you crash, or get caught by law enforcement? We have the technology, we’ve had it for decades.
Watts. Watts. Watts. Hey, do you like cake? Or ice cream? Or pie?
Thanks, but it’s Jonathan’s birthday, not mine.
Hold on, lets try something.
Cake, ice cream and pie make up the Power Trio of desserts. Few people can possibly be upset if offered one of the three. A nice dessert sure is fun.
Unless your diabetic. Got a high-protein carb-free version of the above?
This comment is gold, David!
Happy 50, JM!
The restrictions on Mount Tam obviate E-bikes. Not likely to work here.
Can you explain this comment a little more. What’s not likely to work here? Off-road cycling advocacy? e-bike advocacy?
JM-BP strongly advocates for both.
But E-bikes on single-track would be beyond scary.
I wonder what JM-BP thinks of that.
The grand old Schwinns that first conquered Mount Tam definitely were not E-bikes. But they weighed about the same!
For better or for worse, e-mountain bikes are very common these days, and hardly, “beyond scary”. I’m personally not a fan of using motors in the forest, but I’m not the one making the rules and I just have to live with that.