The Antiplanner applauds California Governor Jerry Brown–who proposed and ultimately persuaded the legislature to kill urban redevelopment agencies–for vetoing a bicycle bill last week. The bill would have required motorists to slow down to 15 mph if they were passing a bicycle and unable to give the cyclist at least three feet of room.
Proponents argued that this was for cycling safety, but as the Antiplanner has previously pointed out, most car-bicycle accidents take place at intersections, while only a tiny number consist of the car hitting the cyclist while overtaking it from the rear. Thus, this bill would have imposed a huge cost on auto drivers–and, as Brown pointed out, could lead to more auto-to-auto accidents–while doing little for bicycle safety.
Nowadays many medicines have been introduced in the field of arts and entertainment, or in the business viagra on line uk and marketing world, and in all other fields of science. It is the oral canada cialis levitra mode of impotence treatment that shows the success rate of more than 90%.When a man suffers with the impotence, he is no longer able to perform a function that is common for most other men can be a confidence shattering blow. This purchase cheap levitra pdxcommercial.com is why healthy lifestyle and regular exercise play an important role in keeping you away from sexual dysfunctions. Calivita natural products to treat Willebrand disease – In all physiological processes prices of viagra in the body, vitamins and minerals act synergistically.
Instead of passing stupid laws that create more problems than they solve, cycling advocates should encourage traffic engineers to solve the real problem of intersections. Does the bicycle box work to reduce accidents? I am skeptical only because it is being used in Portland, and the city has offered no evidence that it works. If it doesn’t work, would giving bikes their own lanes at intersections (as opposed to lanes in the streets between intersections that typically disappear at major intersections) reduce accidents? Or might it actually make them worse by giving cyclists an unwarranted feeling of safety?
Personally, I feel safer cycling on freeways, which is legal in most of Oregon and which generally have broad shoulders, than on Portland city streets, which are narrow and often made narrow by various forms of so-called traffic calming. Portland has lots of cyclists, and the city does a disservice to those riders if it doesn’t do the research to find out how to cost effectively improve cycling safety.
But, Portland can’t afford to actually study effectiveness of its many crackpot ideas. Too many would be proven ineffective or dangerous and the politicians would loose face.
As to 15 MPH passing a bike – that tells us reams about the crackpots elected to office in CA. Only by “cleaning our the barn” of these vermin, will CA recover economically.
Thanks
JK
The best way to reduce traffic accidents between cars and cyclists is to ensure that cars have more awareness of cyclists on the roads. And the best way to do that is to get more cyclists on the road. But, it is a bit of a catch-22. Many potential cyclists will not ride on streets because cycling is or appears to be dangerous. But, things will not get safer until there are more cyclists around to grab the attention of motorists.
In my experience, the “feeling” of being safe is enough to encourage more cyclists on the road. So, things like clearly marked cycle lanes and side streets that are specifically marked for cyclists and are adjacent to more major streets are simple ways to increase perceived safety. This would encourage more cyclists in the long term and hence improve actual safety.
Wow, two comments can tell us a lot about the issues regarding bicycles. First, we get an intellectually illiterate rant from Portland’s resident carloving nutcase, who wants to get rid of all forms of transportation except his beloved single-family automobile. He’s an evil doppelganger of the bicycling fanatics he claims to expose. And then he refers to fellow human beings as “vermin.” Sounds suspiciously familiar to language used in the early part of the last century, doesn’t it?
And then we get a 2nd comment from werdnagreb which is completely and eminently sensible and irrefutable.
Talk about night and day!
I think that our Antiplanning host is, unfortunately, a member of the “John Forester” school of bicycling, which believes that bicyclists should be treated as a legitimate and lawful form of traffic and thus, should have no special facilities or privileges within the roadways, such as bicycle lanes. Like a lot of libertarian positions, the theoretical logic behind such views is impeccable, and then is utterly refuted by practical considerations, including the basic fact that 200 lbs. of bicycle and rider have no chance in the same roadways as several tons of vehicle and driver. The “Forester” school of biking would ensure that cyclists remain an unusual and infrequent presence on our public rights of way.
Nodrog wrote:
I think that our Antiplanning host is, unfortunately, a member of the “John Forester†school of bicycling, which believes that bicyclists should be treated as a legitimate and lawful form of traffic and thus, should have no special facilities or privileges within the roadways, such as bicycle lanes.
Mr. Forester had an extensive and very lucid article in the current issue of the ITE Journal, which tells me that he knows what he’s talking about.
Beyond that, I slightly know and very much respect Mr. Forester.
Please understand that I don’t have to agree with someone in order to respect what he or she says (examples in this forum are posters msetty and dan, who I frequently disagree with, but I do stop to read and consider what they say anyway). There are times when I disagree with the Antiplanner as well, though I clearly respect what he has to say.
It would make more sense that the cars are limited to 15 mph at all times, on some or all roads. There is no 11th Commandment which says that cars must be driven at higher speeds. Over distances of a few miles, there is no real difference in journey times between different speed limits. There are obvious exceptions, like expressways, but the kind of roads that cyclists use could easily afford to be slower.
I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of cycle lanes, but – 1) cycle lanes can increase the rate of accidents for cyclists, by enabling car drivers to overtake closer and faster, 2) they prevent cyclists from riding as vehicles in the general lanes, as the car drivers will expect them to use the cycle lanes, 3) no car is confined in that way, and we are selling bicycles to car drivers.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Proponents argued that this was for cycling safety, but as the Antiplanner has previously pointed out, most car-bicycle accidents take place at intersections, while only a tiny number consist of the car hitting the cyclist while overtaking it from the rear. ”
Sure, but at intersections, cyclists need to manoeuvre across multiple lanes to make left turns (right turns in the UK). This is difficult to do if the bicycle is so much slower than other traffic. The only realistic system is the Dutch one, which involves multiple pedestrian-style crossings for the bicycles. Why, I ask myself, would car drivers switch to bicycles under these conditions?
“Thus, this bill would have imposed a huge cost on auto drivers…”
What is this ‘huge cost’? In busy traffic conditions, the junctions provide most of the delays. The driving between junctions bit is usually very quick by comparison with the junctions.
I like werdnagreb idea, getting more bikers on the roads, all the while yes there will be more accidents but given the number of bikers the per capita number of accidents will decline even though the actual number of deaths or injuries goes up. It’s a Moebius loop of death.
The idea of motorists to slow down to 15 mph if they were passing a bicycle seems rather strict. Slowing down cars create more traffic. If enough bikers show up on the roads they’ll eventually get their bike lanes anyway.
Bike boxes (UK parlance, Advanced Stop Lines).
“The main goal is to prevent collisions between motorists turning right and cyclists going straight. It’s all about visibility and awareness. At a red light, cyclists are more visible to motorists by being in front of them. At a green light, the green bike lane through the intersection reminds motorists and cyclists to watch for each other.”
I can see that allowing the bicycles to filter through like that makes bicycles more attractive. But safer? The only way to get to the bike box is by squeezing up between the kerb and vehicles – and it is this action which causes a lot of fatalities, with heavy lorries turning right just as the cyclists are squeezing away. If the traffic is slowing down to stop, it makes more sense to move over into the centre of the lane instead. Then when the light turns green, slowly move back towards the kerb.
Mr. Forester had an extensive and very lucid article in the current issue of the ITE Journal, which tells me that he knows what he’s talking about.
His letter makes an interesting point about the US being two-faced about bicycle traffic. I can assure you that it is true, and I agree with gordon above that getting more cyclists on the road will help with the two-facedness (while expressing admiration for the patience to read drivel).
However, there is much work being done hereabouts with bike-ped plans, and part of the issue is extant road design and its inherent priveleging of autos over everything else, along with modern network design lacking connectivity (which worsens congestion). We even see questions on planning discussion boards whether we should allow parking on collectors. Of course we should! It would slow traffic (thus making the road safer and less congested). Newer roads have much better design and cost less to add safety features.
Lastly, I assert that if drivers want cyclists off the road, they can pay for the separate facilities to do so. I prefer to ride on the road instead of a sidepath and will use a mirror to watch out for inattentive drivers.
DS
The Antiplanner wrote:
Personally, I feel safer cycling on freeways, which is legal in most of Oregon and which generally have broad shoulders, than on Portland city streets, which are narrow and often made narrow by various forms of so-called traffic calming. Portland has lots of cyclists, and the city does a disservice to those riders if it doesn’t do the research to find out how to cost effectively improve cycling safety.
I have never ridden a bike on the shoulder of a freeway, though it is legal on some sections of freeway and some sections of expressway (MUTCD definitions) in Maryland (and legal on most arterial highways in the state, which have posted speed limits up to 55 MPH (90 k/h)). Certainly I would rather ride on the shoulder (as in any paved shoulder) instead of “mixed-in” with motorized traffic.
Curiously, the high-speed parkways in and near Washington, D.C. (owned and maintained by the National Park Service) either have grass shoulders or narrow paved shoulders – not very nice places to ride a bike.
The Antiplanner is correct in that most high-speed roadways such as freeways have nice, wide shoulders for bicyclists.
But the problem is that the cars along such roadways are going so fast. The probability of a bike-car collision resulting in death for the bike rider is directly related to the speed of the automobile. And, given the number of inattentive drivers on high speed roadways, especially on freeways where such inattentiveness is less dangerous to the driver because of the wide shoulders, a freeway is inherently much less safe for bicyclists than a slower speed road, or even a narrow rural road where the drivers must pay closer attention.
Nodrog posted:
And, given the number of inattentive drivers on high speed roadways, especially on freeways where such inattentiveness is less dangerous to the driver because of the wide shoulders, a freeway is inherently much less safe for bicyclists than a slower speed road, or even a narrow rural road where the drivers must pay closer attention.
I respectfully disagree.
For one reason – the Sonic Nap Alert Pattern (SNAP) “rumble” strips cut into the paved shoulders of many U.S. freeways (at least in the East) and other roads. If that inattentive driver drifts onto the shoulder, those make a lot of racket and the driver should correct back into the traffic lanes, thus making the shoulders a much safer place, even for slow-moving bicycles.
I love to cycle, but I am a wimp about riding in heavy traffic. I just look to enjoyable rides on bike paths and lightly traveled roads.
I will leave the urban jungle cycling arguments to others. But I have to point out that there are all sorts of cyclists out there, including kids of all ages. I cringe at stupid laws that cyclists much do this or that, when it makes no sense for a 10 year old cyclist to not ride on the sidewalk.
Just remember, planners, that when writing cycling rules, that many kids ride bikes.
Regarding biking on the freeway:
This is something that I am loathe to do. Even though many freeways around me do have the SNAP strips in them, biking on freeways is loud, scary, unfriendly, and not very interesting.
Also, good point Sandy. There are different kinds of cyclists who require different kinds of rules. Some cyclists tend to follow the rules and some don’t (I’m thinking of the hipsters on fixies). Assuming that all cyclists are the same is a big error. Just one thing, though. I don’t think it is the planners who make the cycling rules. It is generally municipal by-laws created by the local government (and generally suggested by citizens).
Nodrog said: First, we get an intellectually illiterate rant from Portland’s resident carloving nutcase,. . .
JK: Quite a rant from someone who hides his name. But you do show the average level of dialogue from the bike community.
BTW, do you have a real name?
Thanks
JK
So to support the automobile and its various benefits is to be “intellectually illiterate” and a “carloving nutcase”. Says a lot about people like Nodrog.
mycommentsucks,
Why don’t you try reading the thread before commenting. Mr. Karlock said absolutely nothing about the benefits of the automobile, he simply opposes the cyclist agenda in the west. The inability to contribute anything worth while (and without snarkey attacks) to a relatively civil conversation about road use says a lot about YOU. Grow up.
The “cyclist agenda”, as you put it, is exactly the problem. These cyclists are militant and anti-car, wanting the same benefits as car drivers, with none of the responsibilities (while conveniently wanting drivers to pay for everything). I believe that Portland’s biking agenda isn’t so much pro-bike as it is anti-car. Take this story, where planners delusionally predicted that 25% of trips would be by bike in the future:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/portland_bike_plan_goes_before.html
Or the Oregonian story where they were “surprised” that after years of their war on the automobile and wasting money on light rail and bicycles, almost all trips are still made by private vehicle (duh):
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/09/census_data_portland_region_st.html
Since I’ve been accused of being insensitive to poor Mr. Karlock, let’s look more closely at his first screed:
But, Portland can’t afford to actually study effectiveness of its many crackpot ideas. Too many would be proven ineffective or dangerous and the politicians would loose face.
As to 15 MPH passing a bike – that tells us reams about the crackpots elected to office in CA. Only by “cleaning our the barn†of these vermin, will CA recover economically.
For those of you who may not be conversant with Mr. Karlock, Portland’s “crackpot idea”, in his mind (as evidenced by his many, many posts on Portland area blogs) are as follows:
1. Spending any money at all on bicycle improvements.
2. Spending any money at all on mass transit.
3. Allowing any high-density multi-family residential development in the city.
4. Not constructing several new freeways slicing through existing Portland city neighborhoods.
5. Acknowledging that global warming, caused by human actions, is occurring.
And then he refers to California’s elected officials as “vermin.” The most notorious use of the term “vermin” to describe a fellow group of human beings was perpetrated by Josef Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda machine in the film “The Eternal Jew,” which claimed that “as rats are the vermin of the animal kingdom, Jews are the vermin of the human race.” Mr. Karlock claims to be an educated man, so he must know about the consequences of the words he uses, in their historical context. The fact that, despite this knowledge, he would use such words tells me much about what a warped, twisted, evil human being he is.
As for my identity, I choose to keep it to myself. Given the virulent nature of the bicycle haters here in Portland, of which Mr. Karlock is a great example, I prefer to remain anonymous on this blog.
“…so he must know about the consequences of the words he uses…”
I’m not so sure. To me the lack of understanding of the power of words, particularly words spoken in hate, is the crux of all social and political problems in America. There are a dearth of C. P. Zilliacus’ in this world who “don’t have to agree with someone in order to respect what he or she says.”
This problem is an epidemic on the internet where people can hide behind a monicker a say things that they would never say to another human being face to face. The only thing I’ll probably ever give Mr. Karlock credit for is owning his words. I’d rather stand up and own it, than hide behind anonymity.
I was a full time bike commuter in the 70’s in Portland.
Sense then bike commuting has become more difficult in Portland.
There was a time when you could cut through neighborhoods and find a route with very few stop signs.
Now because of traffic calming programs every other intersection has a stop sign. And because of higher densities and congestion we have more traffic in our neighborhoods.
Most of the bike paths do not go to where I’m going and I think it would be impossible to build a systeem that works for most riders.
Congestion is worse because we now allow our streets to be rated “F” instead of a goal of “C” mostly moving at the posted speed. congestion makes bike riding less fun and more dangerous. I don’t like riding between cars and trucks
Infill and parking restrictions have taken away the the curb area as a place to ride, away from traffic.
Bike lanes have pushed riders next to the traffic and opening car doors.
We don’t need special amenities for bikes, we need to reduce congestion so bikes and autos both can both share the road in peace.
Bubble curbs squeeze bikes into traffic along with bio-swells(sp).
We need a transportation systeem that embraces all modes not a bunch of bike only, rail only, bus only, pedestrian only planning.
We can build our way out of congestion if we wanted to and it would be good for pedestrians, bikes, trucks, transit and autos.
The problem with the Portland bike agenda is, it does not solve the problem. But it does spend a lot of auto users fees on bike projects.
There was recently a cyclist fatality in a residential area of my city. The cycling community made a big deal out of it because the cyclist was hit by a 80+ year old woman who had just pulled out of a retirement home. So it became a debate about old people driving cars.
The cyclist got a ticket for running a stop sign. (Not relevant, but the the cyclist got a ticket from police, then rode his ride, and then died that night in his sleep from head injuries.)
The location happened to be by a favorite bike trail, so I rode off the trail to check it out. It was obvious to me what happened. The cyclist was coming down a steep hill on a minor street, which fed into another minor street. The cyclist clearly wanted to keep his downhill momentum and rode through the stop sign. However, the house on the corner had high bushes that blocked sight lines until the last tenth of a second.
My point is that cyclists care a lot about keeping their momentum, especially at the foot of a steep hill, and even more especially when the path goes back uphill immediately. I take risks all the time at the bottom of hills, and I bet most riders do too.
I have rode bikes and motorcycles and the rule I go by is;
You only get one big mistake, so don’t use it up!
bennett wrote:
I’m not so sure. To me the lack of understanding of the power of words, particularly words spoken in hate, is the crux of all social and political problems in America. There are a dearth of C. P. Zilliacus’ in this world who “don’t have to agree with someone in order to respect what he or she says.â€
Thank you for your kind comment above.
This problem is an epidemic on the internet where people can hide behind a monicker a say things that they would never say to another human being face to face. The only thing I’ll probably ever give Mr. Karlock credit for is owning his words. I’d rather stand up and own it, than hide behind anonymity.
I’ve met Mr. Karlock in person, even though my home state is on the opposite side of the nation from his. He’s honest and straightforward about his beliefs (what a concept!), and it turns out I agree with him more than I disagree with him. And Jim gets extra points from me (as he does from bennett) for sharing his name with us.
That just bullshit CPZ!
You & Jim Karlock are both crooked political assholes!
You’re not even honest about the big government socialsim in front of your houses called a street!