Monday Roundup: ‘Social safety’ for women, remembering Donald Shoup, and more

Welcome to the week. Here are the most notable news items our community has come across in the past seven days.

Remembering Donald Shoup: Shoup, author of the seminal book, High Cost of Free Parking, passed away over the weekend. He was a giant in urbanism for his clear and creative thinking around parking and the need for reform. (Parking Reform Network)

Rail bills in Salem: There’s a full station of legislative bills that have been introduced down in Salem this session. They look to capitalize on growing ridership and realize rail’s potential as a mass people mover. (KGW-TV)

Green wave in NYC: Cool to see more awareness for signal timing that specifically benefits bicycle users, like NYC DOT has implemented in Manhattan — and that Portland has been doing downtown for decades. (NY Times)

Drivers ruin everything: A major professional road race was thrown into chaos when drivers made their way onto the course at several different locations. (CNN)

Reduced demand: One month after congestion pricing went into effect, over one million cars have been taken off the road. It’s just the latest sign that the program has been a sweeping success. (Fast Company)

Bike tourism trends: If you are in any job or field related to bike tourism, don’t miss this excellent summary of some of the top trends to grow the pie in 2025. (European Cyclists’ Federation)

Sentencing in Portland couples’ death: The driver of a truck whose load fell off and hit and killed Portland couple Michelle and Christian Deaton while they were cycling in Napa, California in 2023 was given a one-year jail sentence. (Patch)

True safety after dark: In London, officials are not just talking about how women are at greater risk when riding after dark; they are doing something about it. They’ve deemed some routes “socially unsafe” due to a lack of lighting and escape routes. (BBC)


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.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, contact me via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a paying subscriber.

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

7 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jake9
jake9
5 hours ago

As far as the BBC article goes, I’m not sure if telling people which routes are unsafe actually counts as doing something. It seems more like just giving up and ceding those areas and routes to lawless behavior.
Also, I don’t know why they try to soften the lack of safety by calling it “social” safety.

“Socially unsafe” is the term used for routes where there is a risk of harm from others due to factors such as poor lighting and a lack of escape routes.

It seems from the descriptions that its just straight up safety that is a concern. Safety from assault, sexual assault, harassment and theft mostly targeted at a specific sex, but is applicable to all.
Its unfortunate that self defense if frowned upon in England. Legally its nearly impossible to carry a handgun for self defense as self defense is not a recognized use of a firearm there.
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime/
Also, tasers are considered a prohibited weapon as are knives and most anything else to dissuade an attacker except for some forms of pepper spray, a whistle or a loud cry for help.
The situation the UK find itself with ceding bicycle routes to lawlessness is not one that can be reversed overnight and as usual it is the truly vulnerable who face the most danger from the breakdown in society’s ability to maintain order.
A truly atrocious situation!

hissing tire
hissing tire
3 hours ago
Reply to  jake9

Its unfortunate

So…very….unfortunate:

England: 0.03 firearm homicides/100000
USA: 584 firearm homicides/100000 (85.7% of total violent deaths)

Chris I
Chris I
3 hours ago
Reply to  hissing tire

And more important, as it pertains to the safety of women:

The statistics on the prevalence of intimate partner violence with a gun in the United States are staggering: Every month, an average of 76 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner.2 Nearly 6 million women reported having a gun used on them3 by an intimate partner.4 And beyond the daily toll of this problem, in at least 46 percent of mass shootings between 2015 and 2022, the perpetrator shot a current or former intimate partner or family member as part of the rampage.5 The ripple effects of firearms in the hands of an abuser extend far beyond the intimate relationship—affecting children who witness or live with it and the family members, coworkers, and law enforcement officers who respond to it.

Allowing personal firearms at the level seen in the US would be devastating for women in the UK.

https://everytownresearch.org/report/guns-and-violence-against-women/

jake9
jake9
2 hours ago
Reply to  Chris I

So we are all agreed that violence against women is reprehensible.
What would you do to help women in the situations mentioned in the article? About the same as the help they are getting on the Springwater, in the camps or in Portland itself?

Chris I
Chris I
1 hour ago
Reply to  jake9

Does it really matter what I say? Your position requires a fundamental change in an entire nation’s weapon laws and an assumption that the change won’t end up making it worse for women in the UK overall. This isn’t a discussion about realistic solutions.

Watts
Watts
1 hour ago
Reply to  Chris I

This isn’t a discussion about realistic solutions.

I agree — the idea that the UK would legalize guns for personal defense seems as likely as the prospect we would give ours up.

There is no realistic possibility of either.

I don’t know about the UK, but here in the US, we need practical ideas for reducing the carnage.

Lots of interesting parallels with cars here, including the rapidly changing technological landscape.

Jake9
Jake9
9 minutes ago
Reply to  Chris I

“This isn’t a discussion about realistic solutions.“

I know you’ve been commenting on here for too long to say that with a straight face 🙂