I joined Mayor Keith Wilson for his ride into work this morning. It’s the first time we’ve met up since his successful campaign for mayor when he showed up to speak at Bike Happy Hour several times. I did my best to record the interview as we biked, so sit back and have a watch and/or listen as we tackle all types of topics on the 30-minute ride from North Williams Ave to City Hall.
I was prepped for a chill conversation about biking (since I have a more formal sit-down interview scheduled with him next Wednesday at Bike Happy Hour — you should totally come!), but in typical Mayor Wilson fashion, he got right into a bunch of serious issues and was well-researched and ready to go. Heck, we didn’t really do introductions and he was talking about tolling on I-5 and its impacts on bike safety.
It was a good conversation and shows the depth of knowledge, candor, and work ethic that have become hallmarks of Mayor Wilson’s approach to the job.
I just finished putting this together and don’t have time to share all the highlights since I need to run off to Bike Happy Hour (today, 3:00 to 6:00 pm at SE Ankeny Rainbow Road Plaza, Gorges Beer Co.). I’ve shared a PDF of the transcript below if you’d like to scan the text.
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.
Great interview. You brought up a lot for him to respond to, then gave him lots of room to respond and bring up topics of his own. Also great job of getting the mayor’s attention for a half-hour of lobbying about biking and transportation. And all while recording and riding (which I don’t think would be that easy).
Looks solid in the saddle, that’s great to see. Really happy to see that he’s so well-versed in cycling / transpo issues.
Verrrrry curious about your No Helmet decision Jonathan. Obviously it’s not required…but a bit surprising coming from a bicycle advocate such as yourself.
Do you not use any risk assessment when you decide to wear a helmet or do you wear one every time you go out regardless of your mode of transportation?
HelmetsRcool in the tub or shower.
HelmetsRcool when walking.
HelmetsRcool when driving
And if you don’t wear a helmunt when showering, walking, or driving you are not allowed to whine about people biking without a helmunt.
I’ll never understand the helmet debate – why there is even any debate. If there is some reasonable action I can take to improve my chances of survival in a bike crash, I’m going to take it. And I’ll insist that my kids and other family members do the same. It’s just not that hard to wear a helmet. Kudos to Mayor Wilson for wearing one.
Anyway, I don’t want to re-open the debate but I just wanted to say that.
To help you understand the debate, it comes from two primary sources in IMHO:
1) The observation that (mostly European) cities that have leaned into cycling as a lifestyle tend to have low helmet use and low head injury rates
2) The observation that helmet laws tend to be disproportionately enforced in minority and low-income neighborhoods. IIRC, this is why Austin, TX decided to repeal its helmet law (or at least tried).
Those effete Euros also toddle along in an upright position on their little grocery getters in a protected lane. Even when I’m just going a mile to the store, I’m having more fun (=going faster) and am way more exposed to car traffic than that.
Yes. I’m aware of the two different contexts of Copenhagen-ish cycling environments and literally anywhere else
Also, drivers give you more room without a helmet, and sometimes drive less dangerously:
If you admit that gravity is real and that concrete is harder than a skull, you lose the “cars cause all injuries” argument that is practically an identity around here.
For me it’s because pro helmet folks are completely inconsistent in their advocacy and rationale.If they advocated for helmets based on the actual risk of the activity then I’d take them seriously. They don’t though. To them all trips on a bicycle are the same and a helmet should be worn. Speed, weather, time of day, route and any other factor doesn’t matter. At the same time they don’t advocate for helmets for other activities that have similar or greater risks as cycling.
There’s no nuance and all they achieve is cementing in peoples minds that riding a bicycle is inherently more dangerous than any other equally risky activity they engage in on a daily basis without wearing a helmet.
Yeah, it’s bizarre that he doesn’t wear a helmet. I have a friend who was on group ride in Portland recently and fell due to a dog coming at them. No helmet, landed on their head, causing a fractured scull w/ brain bleed, months of recovery, and possibly permanent hearing loss. Bike crashes are low probability but high consequence. So are car crashes but I assume most people wear seatbelts. I guess people like Jonathan won’t wear a helmet until they find out the hard way. Sorry but it’s true.
And helmets are the cheapest insurance.
Do you wear a helmet when you are in your car? Far more people experience TBIs in motor vehicles than on bikes. There is a reason race car drivers wear them.
Forcing motorists to wear helmets, especially children, while driving would unironically save thousands of lives a year.
Is that far more people per mile driven/ridden? Without normalization that factoid means nothing.
(Race car drivers face a significantly different threat environment than a typical car driver so it makes sense that their safety equipment is different.)
I don’t wear one in this type of situation. When I’m biking faster, more hunched-over, or clipped-in and “training,” I definitely wear one. While working and riding my Tern, I’m totally upright and going slow and I am extremely comfortable. It’s almost like walking to me.
I am close friends with 4 people who were seriously injured on a bike in the past few years, three required hospitalization, and at least two required surgery.
None were traveling particularly fast, and none of the crashes involved a car (but two involved those bollards or other similar “safety” measures).
The journey from bike seat to pavement can cause devastating head injuries, even when riding at a walking speed.
It’s not my business whether you wear a helmet, but please be aware of the risk posed even by low speed upright riding.
Wow! Considering how anti-bike you are, I’m amazed that you know so many cyclist including those who have experienced low-speed major crashes including 3 hospitalizations! And wow! two of them “crashed” against the safety measures you complain about all the time? That’s sounds almost unbelievable.
Yes, it is rather surprising. I didn’t even know that two of them rode bikes until I heard about their crashes.
But you’re right — it does sound like I’m lying about the possibility of a head injury from falling from a slow-speed bike onto the pavement, probably because I’m so anti-bike that I don’t want people to get hurt. Or something like that.
A stationary head, at the height of where it would be when someone sits on a bike saddle, falling to the pavement could have grave consequences. What you seem to overlook, since you gave us no indication of your friends’ abilities or caution or circumstances in riding, is that some people are sufficiently vigilant, athletic, and skilled enough to make head injury without a helmet at low speeds extremely unlikely.
For the two most seriously injured of my friends, I can’t speak to their skills since I didn’t even know they rode bikes as an adult. The other two were very strong and skilled urban transportation riders.
But sure — you’re probably too good of a rider to have a freak accident. I hope I am too, but every once in a while something catches me by surprise, so I wear a helmet just in case. It’s the cheapest insurance I can buy, and my head is worth it.
My thoughts were influenced a lot by this video from Shifter: https://youtu.be/rhzH6mEpIps.
They mentioned that, from what they can discern from the research, bike helmets do reduce head injuries but only by about 60%. Such injuries are rare and there are lots of things that are way more important to your safety like avoiding dangerous roads and biking at night.
The conclusion they reached, and one I think is very reasonable, is to approach it situationally. If you’re biking in a calm, safe environment in daylight you can skip it. If it’s a more dangerous environment, wear it.
It’s also worth noting that in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, helmets aren’t too common. Perhaps because their infrastructure is safe enough.
SMH, We’re through the looking glass, folks.
Lol! I should read the comments before I post. I might have avoided mention of the helmet! Such heavy concern for how other people should manage their personal safety met with uncharitable diatribe for those who express even small concern. What we do with our free speech!
JM: We got a truck in the bus lane.
KW: Yeah, when you’re in a bike lane and you’re in the fall, winter on an un swept road with a lot of trees…so it’s the first thing we’re doing the city is just really providing care for individuals that are suffering on the street…
Was there an elephant in a room painted on the semi-truck parked in the bike lane?
I saw that truck this morning too and was thinking how people from the city need to be aware of how often this kind of thing happens. Glad Wilson saw it. Would be nice to add to the list of things that you don’t leave around, because if you do you have created a new bad policy.
Sure, or maybe point out how Vancouver/Williams is one of the most frequented cycling streets in the city, and would be several orders of magnitude busier/safer if it were separated from cars to the Bway bridge. Seems like KW isn’t aware of if/why Portland cycling numbers continue to stagnate. JM had an opportune moment to help the convenient metaphor interrupt everyone and adamantly gesticulate at the exact reason most people don’t bike.
Even better if they would have had my 9 year-old ride along with them so that they can feel how truly inadequate this premier cycling route is and how riding around a truck like that as a human shield with the sound of 35-40 mph traffic approaching does not inspire someone to ride.
Do tell. But first, why did Portland’s numbers get so high in the first place, if the infrastructure was so bad (much worse than today)?
Before bike lanes, people biked.
People existed before bike lanes.
People are babies.
Therefore, babies can bike.
Babies bike,
therefore babies do sick wheelies.
A wheelie is one wheel.
One wheel is the best wheel.
So we don’t need bike lanes.
Everyone is a baby
doing wheelies
on the best wheel.
The mayor consistently turned Jonathon’s comments and questions back to the familiar talking points from Wilson’s campaign.
Almost as if the mayor is focused on getting certain things done and wants to share his beliefs and priorities. I actually found him to be a good listener, and someone who knew a tremendous amount about conditions and the city.
How’s that “end unsheltered homelessness in 1 year” thing coming along?
Not very well from where we are sitting out in east PDX. But we we’ve been ignored out here for years anyway.
It could be that it’s designated as a loading zone. At 104h and Division, part of the bike lane remains un-curbed and has “No Parking Loading Zone” signs up. I frequently have to go around trucks parked there. Side note, hilarious that if you pan around the street view, there’s two cars parked in a clearly marked bike lane, despite easy, visible, and ample parking on side streets and parking lots. Sigh.
PLEASE FIX THE AUDIO!
Love what you’re doing for the city! Thanks you, great interview
SORRY! Yes it’s not perfect. This is my first time doing this type of setup and it will improve. Thanks for your patience as I learn things in public.
Great interview! The past week or so riding around town I’ve felt pretty discouraged about the graffiti, camps, garbage and general degradation of our city. This morning I read about the stabbing in front of the Central Library and then we rode up Johnson adjacent to the neighborhood in NW that was sheltering in place due to multiple stabbing victims on Johnson and NW 18th. However, your interview gives me hope that I can trust our Mayor and I’m inspired by his example.
I think Wilson wants to do the right thing and get Portland back on track but he’s got an uphill battle with this city government.
That was wonderful, boy do we have a good mayor. (Jonathan, flip the faces around, you on right, Wilson on left, that way you aren’t each looking outside of the frame when you talk to each other.)
Oh my gosh Lisa. I did not even notice that. Ugh!! I edited this so fast and I can’t go back and fix it. But yes that would have been a good idea. Oh well! Glad you enjoyed the conversation.
Crime and violent crime is down in the city which is great although not being able to patrol the Library is completely unacceptable and the police union is still on strike it seems to me.
Otherwise I have not noticed any positive change in the city with our new Mayor/council.
The same trash and tents on my bike routes (more brokedown RV,s).
Graffiti cleanup improved for a few months but is back to the normal disgusting level.
I am happy he rides a bike but I would prefer competence in his job.
Just look at JVP’s response to the arrest of the assailants on this latest library stabbing, and the problem becomes clear. JVP and Multnomah County won’t take the necessary steps to keep their staff and visitors safe, because it doesn’t align with JVP’s politics.
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/08/27/portland-central-library-attack-man-stabbed-hit-with-skateboards/
She spent most of her time going after her political enemies and starts talking about Preschool for All?
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:nsxa6g6dtlxuvikif62jjbae/post/3lxebfl2x3c2a
Anyone who has worked or visited the central library recently knew this was going to happen eventually.
I’ve work nearby and have visited the central library recently and did not think that a stabbing was inevitable. It was honestly fine. I don’t know what about the conditions in the library make you think a stabbing was going to happen.
Further, I don’t know what steps you expect the County to take to prevent crime on a city sidewalk, off of County property. It was Transit Police (County cops) that spotted the suspected attackers on video that led to the arrest. What other steps are you looking for here that would realistically prevent crime happening outside the library?
Crime is happening inside and outside of the library because the library is an attractive location for the kind of people who commit crimes. Libraries should be resources for books and internet usage. Not a place to “safe rest” or do drugs in a bathroom.
The county should make a valid library account a prerequisite for access to the building, and they should be booting out anyone who isn’t using the library for its intended purpose.
I’m glad that you, as an adult male, feel comfortable at the central library. I’ve had several stressful encounters there with my two small children, and we will be sticking to our neighborhood library in the future.
Chris, thanks for the reply. I’m sorry you don’t feel comfortable at the library with your kids, the library should be a place for everyone. Public drug use shouldn’t be happening there. That’s not something I’ve seen, but I’m sorry that you have. Drug use is explicitly against library rules- it is not holding itself out as a place to do drugs.
Your comment didn’t really answer my question, though. How would requiring a library account to access the library prevent a crime on the downtown city streets outside the library?
You say the library attracts the kind of people who commit crime, but doesn’t it just attract people full stop? Who are “the kinds of people” who commit crimes and how do you keep them out of the library while still allowing everyone to come in for reading and internet access? Who will enforce access rules? Cops? Why do you think that no one with a library card would cause issues in the library? They’re not hard to get, which is how it should be.
Also, that’s a limited view of what the library is for, and I don’t think the library would agree with you that those are its only uses. They do community events and support, educational events like language learning, events catered to help people with dementia, and a ton of other stuff. Further, libraries provided life saving shelter from deadly heat last week. How are you going to tell who’s using the library for an “intended purpose?” Who’s going to “boot” someone who shows up for a dementia event, gets a little confused, and just sits down at a table and spaces out for a while, or the person who shows up for English language learning but gets confused or overwhelmed and needs to take a break by pacing around a hallway?
Ultimately, it’s a public space and it faces the same issues that the public faces. The solution isn’t to cut people off from access to resources in the one place they’re freely available to all of us. It’s to address the underlying issues at root here.
Josh, your last sentence says it all. Portland is a welcoming space for addicts. Let’s not be that.
Great to see. No matter the personal/political gripes with Mayor Wilson, you’ve got to admire him getting in the saddle and having a little chat.
And therein lies the problem: too many advocates will see someone from city gov’t on a bike (think Mingus Mapps or Joann Hardesty) and equate being on a bike with supporting polices that help cycling. One doesn’t necessarily lead to the other, though perhaps doing the former makes the latter somewhat more likely.
Images are seductive and often misleading. Kudos to Wilson for riding a bike, but the fact that he can ride a bike isn’t a kind of inoculation for cycling advocacy. Where was he on the diverter issue, for instance?
I wasn’t trying to equate “riding a bike” with being a bike advocate. My point was simply that it’s good to see a mayor comfortable in the saddle and willing to meet with the bike community in that way. That’s still rare in most U.S. cities, and it matters when leaders show up in our space. Plus, in my mind, there is no better place to have a meeting.
Sure, images can be misleading, but showing up on a ride and listening in person is still better than hiding in an office.
On the diverter issue: Wilson has paused the removals and is listening. I wish he had included the community from the start, because holding off-the-books meetings to quietly remove hard-fought infrastructure is BS in my book. At least he heard the pushback and is engaging now. He’s still new in the role, feeling things out, and I’m personally willing to give him some learning and breathing space. None of us are perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction when a mayor is out riding, listening, and acting.
At the end of the day, good intentions don’t fix everything, but they sure beat bad ones. And you have to admit, whether good or bad, he is trying to promote action.
Agreed. Compared to the two previous mayors, Wilson is a breath of fresh air. He reminds me of most of the adults of my childhood who can be described as “Portland Nice.” He comes off as reliable, relaxed, polite, methodical, and even quaint when he talks about operations. I mean, that’s what he was hired for: being a logistics/operations guy to get unhoused people into shelters/houses.
For the purposes of cycling, I expect exactly what I would expect from the adults of my childhood: the assumption that cycling is mostly a recreation/sport, unavoidably stressful (see Vancouver Ave), the kind of status quo Portland has expected. And that’s a lot better than what we had with Hales and Wheeler (and what we could have had with Mapps) who were certainly more prone to behavior like removing a divertor for a political favor.
I wonder what the mayor’s policy is for parking in the bike lane for his trucking company. I remember he made a big deal about the safety of his company when he was running the first time. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts this doesn’t qualify as an unsafe practice. They got the high-vis on though so PPB would have to make some other excuse if they got hit.
Like it or not, it’s allowed for deliveries:
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.560
Then we need to change that law. It’s unacceptable to endanger cyclists and peds so that deliveries can be made, and it’s also possible to make provision for deliveries that doesn’t endanger other road users.
I’m not so sure.
Often, the alternative to a truck parking in the bike lane is to park in the automobile lane.
That results in two things:
1) moving automobiles dipping int the bike lane to get around
2) the truck operator unloading their cargo across traffic
#2 is unsafe for the worker
As for #1, my gut feeling is that I would prefer to merge into automobile traffic on my own terms over having auto traffic merge into me on their terms.
Your mileage and preferences may vary.
Yeah, I actually agree with you here. In an ideal world, every commercial street would have separated bike lanes and dedicated, designated loading zones on every block. That’s probably not going to happen in our lifetimes though. Faster, more confident cyclists can use the general traffic lane and less confident cyclists can use the sidewalk (yielding to pedestrians of course) for that block if they see an obstruction. If I’m somewhere like Vancouver/Williams where traffic is generally slower, I’ll use the car lane. On outer Division or similar stroads I’ll usually just go up on the sidewalk. That kind of sucks I guess, but if the world didn’t suck we’d all fall off.
The alternative here is parking on the right side of the road- to the right of the bike lane.
In some cases, it will be. In other cases, it won’t. There are often cars already cars parked on that side of the street:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/enwRyv53W5ugB2SS9
So my preference remains as stated.
I am very familiar with this area. They could not block the bike lane with a minimal amount of effort. These are not random occurrences. Your preferences as a vehicular cyclist are great. Doesn’t work for many who use or would like to use this route.
What do those last sentences even mean? I don’t use Williams and Vancouver? How could you possibly assert that?
I don’t see any mention of where you do or don’t ride. A vehicular cyclist is some who is comfortable and sometimes prefers riding their bike like a car driver and infrastructure that encourages this type of riding. They often find problems with separated bike infrastructure that might slow them down. They are criticized for their self-centered view of cycling that often excludes people with less confidence, experience or ability to bike in car traffic. Excusing vehicles that block bike lanes while focusing on one’s own preferences and abilities is a hallmark of a vehicular cyclist.
My preference for riding conditions are:
1) a clear path
2) stationary obstacles
…
N) moving obstacles that can kill me.
My original comment is that don’t like cars suddenly swerving into bike infrastructure.
That’s VC?
The VC is downplaying the irresponsibility of a truck parking in the lane when this should have been planned and there were other options.
“In some cases, it will be. In other cases, it won’t. There are often cars already cars parked on that side of the street”
Why does the driver have to park right in front of the business. Are they unable to walk around the corner? They parked there because it’s the most convenient for them not out of a necessity.
Was there available parking around the corner? What kind of cargo was being delivered? What kind of equipment was available to move it inside? Is the sidewalk in good enough condition for a palette mover with a heavy load? Have curb ramps been installed so that the palette mover or hand truck could get onto the side walk?
If I ever become an *hole that blocks bike lanes, I’ll know who to call for unconditional love and support. Do you do sidewalks, too?
What on earth are you talking about?
Not everyone here is familiar with manual labor and what it is like so they have difficulty conceptualizing how the resources that the city use every day actually arrives. Any description of the realities of that manual labor frequently gets labeled as car centric thinking.
I am talking about the impressive number of excuses that you came up with to justify this business’s repeated misuse of the road that endangers people. If this were a factory or a work site, this business would be the same as a coworker or employer who doesn’t follow common sense safety protocols.
Merging high speed car and truck traffic with low speed bike traffic is a recipe for disaster. It is also a major stress point and deterrent for cycling on one of the most used bike lanes at one of the busiest times of the day. Adults are biking to work. Kids are biking to school. It is one of the only marginally protected routes from N and NE Portland across the river.
Just like a work place should be fined for violating safety measures, this business should be fined for repeatedly blocking this road. It is well within their means to have a plan to mitigate risk and operate safely, but they are refusing to do so.
The most common reason for people to block bike lanes is laziness or greed. Your comment appears to state all of the reasons that this business should be allowed to make this road dangerous. All of these justifications are well within the control of the business and could be addressed.
Sidewalk condition is within the resources of delivery drivers?
Apologies, I will refrain from using empathy and my own past experiences to explore why likely underpaid hourly laborers make the decisions that they do in the future.
The business that frequently receives deliveries as part of their operations is responsible for the sidewalks and a safe working environment. As is often the case, the “plight of the working man” is being confused with the harmful irresponsible actions of the business.
Do you tell your FedEx driver where they can park?
As others have pointed out, this is not the same as individuals receiving an occasional FedEx or Amazon delivery. It seems like you are purposefully misunderstanding at this point.
Businesses that routinely receive deliveries from large trucks like this are obliged to mange those deliveries in a way that is safe for everyone. It’s not hard to understand. Grocery stores have docks, other business have loading zones with restricted parking, these guys have plenty of space and there is frequently a fork lift swimming upstream in the bike lane moving material around in this area. The forklift operators do a great job of getting out of the way and letting bikes pass.
I don’t see the point in justifying or apologizing for their dangerous mismanagement.
I’ve known several businesses who definitely tell delivery drivers where to park. Some even tell them not to park in certain legal spots to avoid negative impacts to other people.
Businesses (and anyone who gets deliveries) SHOULD tell delivery drivers not to park in ways that are inconsiderate or unsafe, especially when there are better alternatives.
I also occasionally tell delivery drivers (and other drivers) they shouldn’t be blocking crosswalks, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. especially when they’ve got better alternatives, and especially when it’s a City vehicle with a Vision Zero bumper sticker.
I’ve also told businesses to tell their delivery drivers, employees who park, etc. to behave more responsibly and courteously.
I’m not talking about hounding some overworked FedEx driver who’s double-parked because they’ve got an impossible schedule and no better alternatives, but rather ongoing situations that are unsafe or especially inconsiderate but don’t have to be.
The most typical thing I see is that it’s a business who’s making the “plight of the working man” worse by not making accommodations for them to make deliveries safely and without harming others (and then having to bear the brunt of negative reactions from those people, that often would be best directed at the business.
This has come up before in articles. You’re right that there’s a state law, but Portland has its own traffic laws (which is legal by state law) and it’s NOT legal in Portland.
https://www.portland.gov/code/16/20/130
U. On or within a bicycle lane, path, or trail.
Interesting. But it also seems that every code on that page is basically never enforced anywhere in the city. And who would enforce it, the parking enforcement?
Thanks for pointing that out.
It would be so much better for everyone if we could have designated stopping/parking zones for delivery vehicles so they’re not just stopping in the bike lane, and ditto for rideshare pickup/drop off, especially on those busy commercial corridors (I’m thinking specifically of Vancouver in the mornings/Williams in the evenings).
Having designated stopping zones would take the guesswork out for the drivers, and keep the bike lane predictably clear for cyclists. No brainer, really! then I could stop flashing my thumbs down at all the uber drivers I have to go around on my way home!
There is tons of space for that truck to park to unload without blocking the bike lane.
1) If you watch the video, you see that there is space to the right just after where the truck was parked in the bike lane.
2) Businesses there are constantly running little fork lift vehicles up and down the bike lane in this area to move stuff around.
3) The cars and trucks parked in front of that building preventing the truck from parking to the right probably belong to people who work there and could be moved.
4) If the business is expecting a huge truck to have to park there, they could block off that space and let the truck park there when it comes.
Which leads to the conclusion that the truck driver and the owners/ employees of the business that allowed the truck to block the bike lane for a long time suck and they should be fined for this well-documented illegal use of the road that endangers other road users. They clearly had other options.
I actually go by the exact spot they were in every morning, so I’m very familiar with the forklifts and trucks on that block. More often, the trucks stop in the car lane, and I wind up competing with cars using the bike lane to go around.
But I agree with all your points above, that spot is a choke point literally every day and no one seems interested in changing anything about it, so yeah they should be fined.
This isn’t some FedEx delivery these trucks are unloading for well over an hour. Not to mention there’s legal parking to the right of the bike lane land other perpendicular streets the driver could park on and walk from.
All that aside I said nothing about the law I asked about the safety of this practice. There’s lots of stupid laws on the books that are dangerous for cyclists to please motorists. It doesn’t mean we should just accept them.
All in all, it was a great interview and encouraging. I am hoping this means that he has decided not to trade modal diverters, like NW Everett and Johnson, for political favors.
Wear a helmet!
Thanks for caring!
Rules for thee, not for me.
What rules are you referring to? There’s no rule requiring wearing adults in Portland to wear bike helmets.
Where are you thinking that “rules for thee, not for me” applies to Jonathan? What rules is he saying should apply to others, but not him?
You’re off your rocker.
After a Tesla accelerating in “ludicrous” mode hits me from behind, throws me forward, and then crushes my rib cage and organs as it rolls over me, please put “but he was wearing a helmet” on my tombstone.
Thanks in advance.
Light speed is too slow. We’re gonna have to go right to… Ludicrous speed!
When Wilson shows up for some really controversial issue – diverters that drivers want to remove, for example – and stares down the drivers and says “Drivers need to give up some space so that cyclists have room to ride,” then I’ll believe he’s an advocate for cycling.
I’m sure his PR people loved the idea of him cycling with Portland’s #1 cycling advocate – all of the work the imagery would do for the mayor.
Fred, you should stay tuned for my sit-down interview with him next week where we’ll hear directly from him about the diverters and other issues. You can watch it live in SE Ankeny Rainbow Road Plaza at 5:30 pm on Wednesday or catch it here shortly thereafter.
Also Portland’s #1 helmet de-advocate.
I wish I was more shocked, but dude has a history.
At what point has anyone on this website actively discouraged people from wearing helmets?
Surprised to see a “bike advocate” riding without a helmet, as if the laws of gravity and realities of human anatomy do not apply to him.
Anyhow, poor choice that reflects poorly upon our community.
Why does it “reflect poorly upon our community”? What is “our community”–all people who ride bikes? All people living in Portland? All men?
If a driver does something legal but that you don’t like, do you say their behavior “reflects badly on the driving community?” Why not?
I enjoy reflecting poorly on your community while riding helmet-free.
Great vid. I don’t agree with everything Mayor Wilson does, but I was happy to find out that he bikes around to every district of the city to check things out. The comment about street sweeping was a little silly in the context of the truck blocking the bike lane, but I actually do agree with him there. There has been a noticeable uptick in the cleanliness of bike lanes on my commute. The bits of glass can be especially bad for giving me flats, which really suck to deal with.
I like the interview style and would love to see more elected reps, business leaders, and artists do this with you! Maybe something like Subway Takes but on bikes? Bike Takes? Looking forward to the sit-down interview next week.
Jonathan, would you follow up on an important planning topic the Mayor mentioned as an aside, his “concern” that any future tolling of the interstate network would automatically spill over onto the local arterial (and bikeway) network. The research out of the implementation of the comprehensive NYC congestion pricing has not seen it to the extent expected and even less.
“Recent data strongly suggests that spillover traffic effects have been minimal or non-existent. Instead, congestion pricing appears to be delivering broader improvements—not only within Manhattan but across the regional network, with better speeds and less gridlock.” ChatGPT basic.
Why is this concern a “concern”? If anywhere but the bridges across the Columbia gets tolling, there’s going to be a lot of spillover onto local streets. If we tolled every street, like they do in Manhattan, it might be less of an issue, but making one route more expensive will inevitably divert vehicles onto others.
You lose all credibility the moment you let ChatGPT do your research.
Chalmers Elysees, I strongly agreed with your statement 1+ years ago; where I had to frequently correct technical searches when I tested its progress to see how to adopt this technology in the office.
Recently it has gotten very good when used for transportation topics. I have been impressed.
Uh, where exactly would the traffic in Manhattan “spill over” to? It’s an Island!
Not really comparable to tolling urban freeways with several parallel surface streets.
I studied congestion pricing for my transportation program at PSU and observed some key differences:
1) The cities that have implemented it successfully (London, Stockholm, Singapore and now NYC) used zones, and those zones had very comprehensive networks of public transit (both subway and bus) in place before the program began. In other words, commuters had (reasonable) alternatives if they didn’t want to pay the fee. The tolling proposed here in OR was for freeway segments, and those were in non-central areas with few/no good alternatives to driving, especially on a more regional scale.
2) A good congestion pricing scheme uses the revenue for transit and active transportation. The idea is to get ppl out of cars, but if you’re not prepared for the added capacity on other networks, modes like transit start to become crowded and less attractive, and behavior could revert back to driving. London used the revenue to improve stations, increase frequency, and build out better bike infrastructure to enhance users’ options. ODOT’s proposed program intended to put the revenue toward wider freeways.
Without other high-quality options to driving, it very likely would just push the congestion off to freeway-adjacent roads and neighborhoods.
I am slightly astounded at how many comments focused on Jonathan’s lack of a helmet for story about a ride-along interview with the Mayor. It became a non-sequitur that took over a hefty chunk of the comments section.
Until the law is changed helmets remain optional for anyone over 16.
If this upsets you, lobby your elected officials to change the law.
Totally agree with your comment/observation! JM scores an interview while having essentially one on one time with Portland’s mayor WHILE cycling and the big takeaway seemed to be whether he was wearing a helmet.
I know we have come to expect amazing journalism from him, but this interview is pretty incredible and too many people focused on the something petty.
I found the mayor’s comments and responses to be incredibly thoughtful and sincere. Hearing him speak convinced me we have the right person heading up the city. If only our county government had a leader like him, we could get so much more done.
JR
How is Wilson’s promise of ending unsheltered homelessness in 1 year going? Personally, I haven’t seen any progress.
Where have you looked? I don’t have hard data, but if we’re talking personally, my treks around North Portland show marked improvement and downtown is somewhat better than this time last year, and both are improved markedly since January. Again, just my personal observations and judgement. I’m sorry if the improvement I sense is there because the unsheltered have moved to other parts of town.
Is there some other way you look to see progress?
What a great riding interview!
Mayor Keith reminds me of my past commuter mentality with his visibility gear. At some point I must have realized it was not stopping car drivers from invading my space, and hi viz has gone by the wayside. Still wear the helmet, though. Of my four serious falls on pavement in 20 years, only two involved cars, and all four required a helmet replacement.
Dang! Jonathan has some impressive skills! Riding with one hand, twisting while moving to get a shot with the hand-held, and navigating around safety hazards all while holding an intelligent conversation!
Did I hear the mayor wanting more street sweeps…to clear leaves? I look forward to that happening in the Fall and Winter! My summertime nemesis has been broken glass. A flat every few weeks.