Sound Off on New Laws
Posted by: KarlFeb 20 2008, 9:23 am
This year’s month-long “Special Session†of the legislature limited the number of bills that were allowed to be introduced. Consequently, the timing wasn’t right to get the kind of comprehensive bicycle legislation we might like. I am using my time in Salem to develop working relationships with legislators in preparation for the 2009 regular session.
We are developing ideas for the 2009 regular session now. We welcome input from the bicycling community as we put our list together. Post your ideas here and we will consider them as we move forward.
double the transportation funding for bicycle and peds.
tax credits and mileage compensation for business use of bicycle
more bicycling info and ed in drivers manual and on drivers test
Feb 20 2008 at 11:24 amI'm full of ideas but here are a couple I think are realistic.
Feb 20 2008 at 11:39 amFirst, all new school construction in Oregon should be linked to some kind of "safe routes" requirement, so that any kid in the attendance area (or within a certain distance?) would have a safe biking route allowing him/her to get to school. perhaps this could be linked to new home construction as well?
Second, when communities are required to put in a "bike lane" They should be prohibited from doing so on a high traffic street used by trucks and large/heavy commercial vehicles. It seems (Gresham is my example) that the easiest through streets to white stripe are also the ones with the most traffic. This should change. While it is impossible (and I think unadvisable) to focus on separate infrastructure for cars and bikes, I think efforts can be made to separate commercial trucks and bikes.
There's some interesting legislation coming out of California on land use, health and planning; might be worth taking a look. One example addresses obesity and land use by authorizing county health officers to aid cities and counties in land-use and transportation planning as they relate to public health. Another one, the California Healthy Places Act, would "require various state agencies and departments to collaboratively support childhood development, prevent injury, illness, and chronic disease, ensure environmental health, and reduce health disparities by providing knowledge, guidance, and resources for public health assessments of land use and transportation system planning." I don't know exactly how mandates like this play out, but I'm heartened to see legislators making the connection between active transportation and public health.
I would also like to see continued progress in protecting vulnerable roadway users and in creating real penalties for irresponsible drivers who kill, maim, or harass bicyclists and pedestrians. Likewise, I would support any legislation that makes driving more of a privilege and less of a right (e.g. license suspension for aggressive or irresponsible drivers; higher bar for getting a license; increased commercial driver education/licensing requirements; relicensing programs; more funding for neighborhood traffic enforcement or red light cameras) or slows cars down (statewide traffic calming funding; lower residential speed limit; etc.).
Finally, how about more funding for programs and facilities? California and Colorado have both beefed up their statewide SR2S funding in the last few years…
Feb 20 2008 at 12:07 pmBike riding laws should benefit riders and promote alternative transportation as opposed to giving way to the superiority of gas powered vehicles. Bike riders should not have to follow car or pedestrian laws as we are neither. I know there are specific laws particular to bike riders but these should better benefit the bike rider. For example the ol' roll and go idea at stop signs. We REALLY need that!
Feb 20 2008 at 12:08 pmThis preference given to bikes, skaters and pedestrians would benefit us all in so many ways! Share the Road would be more understood and respected, more folks would be inspired to use alternates to cars, the roads may be less congested, but best of all we would be on our way to truly becoming a more mindful species.
And of course all of the other ideas are great and very important as well.
Meant to say…is it time to take a crack at requiring school siting decisions to consider the health impacts on children's transportation options? School consolidation, magnet schools, big box schools build on suburban fringes, and many other trends are result in fewer kids walking and biking to school. School districts are not even required to participate or adhere to existing regional land use and transportation planning, and those agencies don't have jurisdiction over school districts and thus can't compel them to play ball. I don't know what the answer is, and I know this is a very complex issue, but can you do some brainstorming about what possible carrots and/or sticks could be championed?
Feb 20 2008 at 12:10 pmGeesh, I made several typos…sorry.
Feb 20 2008 at 12:10 pmWe need a vehicular manslaughter law in the state of Oregon. A very small (but quite entirely inadequate) half step was taken with the "Vulnerable Users" law. However, all that that law does is establish up to $10,000 penalties for killing vulnerable road users, which is far, far less than even the smallest wrongful death lawsuit would demand. It is highly unfair to put the burden for punishing and deterring deadly motorists on their victims.
Victims of careless and reckless motorists — and their families — are usually busy enough just trying to pick up the pieces of their lives, let alone start a complex, costly and lengthy litigation process against their victimizers. Clearly a much more powerful deterrent is needed to deal with cases such as that of Jennifer Knight, the killer of Tim O'Donnell, apprehended driving on a license suspended for cause after committing a series of traffic violations culminating in Mr. O'Donnell's death.
Feb 20 2008 at 1:05 pmRemove the restriction in ORS 814.420 that mandates that cyclists MUST use a bike lane when present. If that isn't practical, modify ORS 814.420(2) to say "A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the SPECIFIC bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT" (my changes in capital letters)
For what it's worth, I am a BTA member. Thanks!
Feb 20 2008 at 1:28 pmAnother change that is urgently needed, and I don't know exactly which ORS this is, but:
Feb 20 2008 at 1:47 pmThe provision in the law requiring motorists to turn ACROSS bike lanes instead of merging into them as they would any other lane when executing right turns is SHEER MADNESS. This novel (read, "deeply misguided") provision of Oregon law flies in the face of nationally recommended best practices (eg, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003/Ch9.pdf), and is directly responsible for numerous injuries and fatalities, including recent ones that have received widespread public attention here in Portland.
I disagree with Antonio. If we tell drivers that they can and should use my bike lane as a right turn lane, then what good is the bike lane at all? I want it to be MY space, that they are allowed to cross if they are good and attentive drivers.
Feb 20 2008 at 2:19 pmI want to see the "Idaho Style" stop legislation passed. This is legislation that would allow, as the state of Idaho has already done, bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield sign. The reality is that everyone, yes virtually everyone, even those who are the most staunch advocates for obeying every law, treat stop signs as yield in some situations. It is a far more efficient way to get around, and perfectly safe if the rule of yield signs is followed (i.e. stop unless it is clearly safe to go).
Let's face it, we are all doing it to some extent and so why should we be ticketed for doing something safe and efficient.
Feb 20 2008 at 2:44 pmJessica:
Why don't we apply the same line of reasoning to all lanes? Why would we want to use the principle of directional positioning (position yourself in the roadway closest to your intended direction of travel) in all other situations with the EXCEPTION of bike lanes??
You are not in fact gaining any kind of protection at all from this painted line when you actually REQUIRE motorists to turn ACROSS the line the instant before their right turn. You are LOSING a lot though, because a lot more things are competing for a motorist's attention when they are turning right (pedestrians in crosswalks, cross traffic at the intersection, etc) than when they are merging from one lane into another.
It seems that what you are trying to do is to preserve an illusion for yourself by making the painted lane into a simulation of a grade separated right of way. It is not, and the attempt to indulge this self-delusion is dangerous to your own safety as a cyclist.
Feb 20 2008 at 2:44 pmDon't call me delusional. I've been biking in Portland basically every day for the last 10 years. I think the Oregon system works, adheres to common sense, and preserves the actual benefit of the bike lane by prohibiting it from getting clogged up at every single corner by cars using it as a right turn lane.
Feb 20 2008 at 2:59 pmKarl, thanks for asking. I echo encouragement of the points above about land-use planning, school siting, and lowering speed limits for drivers on residential streets, and greatly increasing driver education requirements, in general as well as to include sharing the road with bicyclists.
Let's have regulations that require vehicles to be compatible with other road users. Particularly underrun guards and mirrors on large trucks, but there are plenty of SUVs out there which are designed so that the driver simply cannot see cyclists or pedestrians who are too close to their vehicle.
I'd also love to see Oregon adopt an Idaho Style law.
And lets expand the Bicycle Bill to mandate inclusion of bicycling and walking facilities that meet expected demand ten years out in ALL road projects, period.
Enough work for ya?
Feb 20 2008 at 3:04 pmI am a pedestrian and walking goes hand-in-hand with bikes, or at least here in Portland, OR, they do.
I'm concerned in general about violence against bikers/walkers/animals/etc, but one other concern I have is this: the amounts of chemicals (such as benzene) that we breathe in as walkers/bikers/etc needs to be addressed SOON, or there is a real possibility that in the future, it won't be environmentally safe to commute. Also, as us walkers/bikers age, we deserve the right to be able to continue to enjoy doing these activities, but it will cost money, in order to do so???
Crumbling infrastructure has always been a hazard, but how do we maintain adequate roads/sidewalks, while at the same time, striking a compromise with us and wildlife/animals, who must also "share" the road?
I think that the war in Iraq is taking away valuable resources that could be used here domestically, instead of overseas. We're fighting a "war of the feet and bike". Thanks for listening to my comments.
Feb 20 2008 at 3:09 pmJessica, my apologies. My remarks were not meant as a personal slight. Indeed, ten years ago, living in California, I myself felt exactly as you do now, and resented having to share bike lanes at intersections. I came to revise my views after riding thousands of miles all up and down the west coast and in cities across the country, as well as studying the works of cycling safety educators.
Feb 20 2008 at 3:37 pmI also would like to see some Idaho Style law put into effect.
I have visited many metro areas around the country. In all my touring outside Portland the police largely ignored cyclists, because bikers are almost incapable of causing harm. Most of our fine Police force know which are important laws that needs to be enforced, and which crimes only burden the City and its people.
Idaho Style makes sense. Thanks for you time.
Feb 20 2008 at 4:19 pmMost of the commenters have thus far expressed excellent ideas, and all of them are intended to promote liveable communities. For that, they deserve commendation.
But the Oregon Legislature needs to hear one important message:
Unless it is willing to make fundamental changes to the motor vehicle code that (a) ensure the safety of people who want to use a bicycle as a transportation option, and (b) educate motor vehicle operators as to how to share the roadway with bicyclists, bicycling will not continue to realize its potential as a sustainable transportation option, as a solution to Oregon's global warming emissions, to the problem of peak oil and foreign fuel dependency, to hazardous air pollution, and to communities that are accessible to all.
If the Oregon Legislature is not willing to take bold action now, bicycling will remain nothing more than an advocation of messengers, the lycra set, and a small minority of commuters.
The Legislature needs to be asked the question: Are you serious about making bicycling a viable means of getting around Oregon's towns and cities?
We, Oregon's bicyclists, are tired of vague platitudes about "encouraging bicycling." We're tired of having our lives endangered by careless and vindictive drivers on a daily basis. We are tired of bills that do nothing more than commemorate our dead.
WE WANT ACTION. AND WE WANT IT NOW.
Is the BTA willing to advocate for this? I want a simple yes or no answer.
Feb 20 2008 at 9:50 pmI would like to see the hand bill brought back. We were so close last year. With a little more input from pedestrians around the state I think we could see it happen.
Feb 20 2008 at 10:31 pmI agree with almost all of the above comments. The most important legislation is driver education and a tangible effort by the State to encourage bicycle commuting for all of it's benefits.
An additional piece that I would like to see is a specific effort to create connectivity on the streets. There are thousands of neighborhoods in Portland and it's suburbs where the local streets all dead-end and the only connecting route is a wide arterial. This keeps many people from walking and biking.
And to Martha Perez, if it's any consolation Transportation Alternatives cited a study which found that drivers inhale 5-10 times as much pollution as non-drivers due to the proximity and duration to an engine.
Feb 20 2008 at 10:52 pmI would like to see Bicycle Boulevards given official status and implement fines for speeding / reckless driving similar to those in school or construction zones. Speed restrictions to 25 mph and signage informing the motorist that they are driving on a Bicycle Boulevard could also be implemented.
Also the “Idaho Style†stop would be nice.
Feb 20 2008 at 11:29 pmAll drivers should be prohibited from any and all use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. No exceptions.
Feb 21 2008 at 12:02 amDriving should be a privlage, not a right. 1 DUI and you should loose your license for life, no exceptions. More bike related information in the drivers test and book are very important. Tougher regulations for irresponsible drivers is a must if we want to see safer roads. Too many people have licenses that are a danger to others on the road, pedestrians, bikes, as well as other motorists. Lets make the road safer for everyone by getting these people out from behind the wheel.
Lots of great ideas up there, but to really make improvements, its going to take law makers taking actions that wont be popular. Just like my 5th grade teacher said, what is right is not always popular, and whats popular is not always right.
Feb 21 2008 at 1:25 amGet the BTA on the official notice list of record for all municipalities (including ODOT) in the State of Oregon. Whenever a project is proposed that will affect the street network, on anything from a partition or small subdivision up to a major commercial project or Planned Development, the municipality will be required to send the BTA a Notice of a proposed land use action. Return testimony kindly asking the municipality (or ODOT) to follow the rules and require sidewalks, bicycle lanes and appropriately located bicycle parking.
I didn't read all the other comments, so I don't know if anyone already mentioned this, but I do know Washington State has a law that requires sidewalk connections to an elementary school if a residential development is within the "walk-shed" and the sidealk network either doesn't exist or is incomplete…the entire way. They basically say if there is no safe route to school within a mile of the school, you have to build one. So cool.
Oh, and increase penalties for drivers who have accidents with non-drivers. And make drivers aware of these penalties, and WHY they exist.
Feb 21 2008 at 7:36 amFUNDING, funding, funding. We need more dedicating funding earmarked specifically for ped and bike projects. I know this is a very difficult uphill battle, but I think it is one of the most important - without it there cannot be much progress.
I also second Jessica's suggestion (or third it, if you count Evan's comment) for pursuing real penalties for causing harm to vulnerable road users.
Thanks y'all - keep up the good work.
Feb 21 2008 at 9:13 amThere are existing laws that need to be cleaned up. For example, " 814.440 Failure to signal turn; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to signal for a bicycle turn if the person does any of the following: (a) Stops a bicycle the person is operating without giving the appropriate hand and arm signal continuously for at least 100 feet before executing the stop. …" The only exception is when both hands are needed to safely control the bike.
It is impossible to comply with this law if the distance between stops is less than 100 feet, if a light changes when you're less than 100 feet away, or if something moves into your path.
Cars are required to signal stops only when their brakes are applied, which is much less than 100 feet when stopping from biking speed.
There undoubtedly are many more stupid laws that should be removed or rewritten. Since nobody else cares, the BTA should include the fixing of stupid existing laws, even if they are mostly unenforced, in their package.
Feb 21 2008 at 1:28 pmIt seems like letting cars merge into the bike lane is a reasonable trade-off for bike boxes, which basically allow the opposite to occur.
So many situations are exacerbated by cyclists with the "I don't yield to nobody never" attitude. If we never yield, are we surprised Stop as Yield legislation hasn't appeared yet?
The main example I would cite is westbound Hawthorne at the last light at MLK/Grand/Whatever. Why not yield to the bus? Cars are required to do so, and nobody goes anywhere in three lanes until the bus merges successfully. Yet cyclists constantly crowd the bus. Why? Are you really that conceited about your form of transportation that you would snub, quite visibly, those that chose other non-auto means of transportation?
On that note, Stop as Yield, MUST MUST MUST become law soon. Increasing basic priority and protections (stop signs for cross-traffic) for Bike Boulevards also ranks high on my list.
Feb 21 2008 at 1:47 pmThere's a profusion of different suggestions here, so I hope BTA tries to identify some common general themes, Such things as "facilities", "enforcement against dangerous drivers," "education", etc.
Then, maybe you could go back to your members and cyclists in general and ask them to rank those general themes you have identified from this feedback in order of importance, or on a scale 1-5, say. That way, I think BTA could get a better sense of people's priorities.
For me personally, for the "themes" I've just mentioned, the ranking would look something like:
enforcement against dangerous drivers - 5
safety education (for both motorists and cyclists) - 4
reform of bad laws - 3
facilities - 2
etc.
Feb 21 2008 at 2:52 pmI believe there is a need for a vehicular manslaughter law. I also believe there is a need for funding for education
Feb 21 2008 at 2:54 pmSome great ideas up so I'll just post some reiterations:
-Allow motorists to merge for right turn AND for cyclists to merge left for through. i.e. mandate dotted lines for bike lanes approaching intersections and repeal the mandatory bike lane law!
-Going along with the above- increase education: Motorists Ed and Bike Ed (in schools as well as adult education via a state funded voluntary enrollment League of American Bicyclists style Road One course).
-Safe Routes to School (Funding and implementation)
- Bike Boulevard standards and practices implemented.
-Vehicular Manslaughter Law.
Not mentioned:
Feb 21 2008 at 2:58 pm-Increase lighting requirements to a red rear light (current law only requires a reflector). We have to give as well as receive and this would show we are working towards safer cycling. With the change in technology (inexpensive LED lights etc.) we have the ability to light ourselves better than we used to and it should be required. This doesn't mean your bike HAS to have a light, just if you want to ride at night.
Require cell phones to be fitted with a GPS chip that renders the phone inoperable at speeds greater than 5 MPH.
There are too many distractions for drivers. (Busses, trains could be fitted with some manner of decoders)
Feb 21 2008 at 3:42 pmI'd like to see a repeal of the mandatory bike lane law and mandatory side-of-the-road law from the state of Oregon and the UVC eventually (probably a long ways away). Currently the safest method of cycling (vehicular cycling) is partially prohibited by Oregon bicycle-specific (discriminatory) law. The slow-moving vehicle law is all that is needed to govern cyclist's position on the roadway when they are moving slower than the speed of traffic. In many cases they are not, and there should be no laws prohibiting them from operating according to the laws for drivers of vehicles and passing right-turning or slower-moving vehicles properly and using a safe amount of roadway space (e.g. riding far enough away from parked cars to avoid getting "doored"), bike lane or not. The bicycle-specific laws are merely micro-management of cyclists' roadway position for the convenience of motorists (until it violates standard traffic operation principles and causes an accident, which inconveniences both motorists and cyclists). Traffic laws are intended to promote safe operation, not the convenience of one class of road user at the expense of the safety of another's; these have no foundation in safety, and thus should be repealed. Hopefully more people will start to recognize this irony of traffic law, there's simply no rational reason for it to exist.
If people still want their bike lane stripes (as opposed to the same width road minus the stripe, known as a wide outside lane), with all the traffic conflicts they create and trash they accumulate, then fine. Just absolve me from prosecution for riding safely, I'll learn to deal with any motorist harassment as it comes.
Feb 21 2008 at 10:56 pmI would like to see some sort of fee/tax program for new bicycles ( and possible bike related accessories, if feasible). Not only would this create a dedicated revenue stream for bike related programs and infrastructure, albeit, likely a small one. But this would also show that cyclists are willing to walk the walk. It may also change the opinion of few unenlightened autophiles that cyclists are not a bunch of freeloaders (not my personal opinion, but something I have seen on occasion in the Op-Ed columns). Don't think of it so much as a tax, but rather a PR campaign…well, and also a tax.
Feb 21 2008 at 11:42 pmThe law requiring bike and ped facilities to be built where roads are improved needs a major revision. This law basically guarantees that it is the busiest roads which get the bike facilities. This is killing us out here in the suburbs. This law should be rewritten to make construction of a parallel bike facility the preference.
Related to this, there should be a requirement that bike lanes be completed. Washington County is literally covered with bike lanes that begin and end randomly. The places where these lanes end are consequently very unsafe. The pieces of bike lane need to get connected, and bike lanes need to not get pinched off at instersections.
Designation and protection of Bike Boulevards would also be very helpful. There should be a requirement that municipalities designate a safe bike route at some periodic distance (every 5 miles for instance) running through the length of the town in reasonable directions (for instance, north-south and east-west).
Feb 22 2008 at 7:59 am205 Bike path has been unnecesarily rerouted onto 92 for several miles. Some are necessary, most are not. The Powell bridge was closed down for close to 6 months before construction deemed that necessary. Now that the construction does not pose a safety threat, it is still closed. Why did we spend so much money on the powell bridge to have it closed down for a long period of time only a year later. There seems to be an overall attitude with the construction planning of projects to just route bike paths to roads when not entirely necessary. I think more accomodation could be taken in general, during construction projects, to allow for bike transportation.
Feb 22 2008 at 9:23 amZuckerdog,
I disagree with your proposal for some sort of fee/tax program for cyclists. I think it makes some erroneous assumptions about road use (maybe not, so correct me if I'm wrong):
-That roads have restricted access, and users must "buy into" them to gain the right to use them. This is incorrect. Motorists have licensing and registrations fees for several reasons, all because they drive MOTOR vehicles. Motor vehicles and motorists have special restrictions for several reasons: they can be extremely dangerous when operated by an incompetent driver (thus justifying licensing); they can cause more roadway damage (bicycles cause none); they are difficult to catch, they can be used for committing crimes; they make the driver hard to identify; they often require more police resources to enforce speed limits and other dangers to the public safety; they are self-portable, valuable property that gets stolen often (thus requiring more police resources to recover). None of these apply to cyclists or bicycles. The near-ubiquity of cars and trucks on our roads has caused many people to believe that these extra fees and restrictions are the means of "buying" the right to use the road. It is simply a lie.
-That gas taxes pay for the majority of our roads. Also false. I believe at most gas tax funds may contribute about half the funding for bigger projects like freeway construction and overpasses (which cyclists do not use). The vast majority of roadway funding and maintenance come from a mix of property and income taxes, which everyone except for IRS-evading dead-beats pay for. I think that gas taxes in some areas sometimes are intended to internalize external costs for motor vehicles (like roadway repair and maintenance) kind of like cigarette taxes and internalizing external health care costs. I don't know how true this is, but it's something I've heard before.
-Most cyclists are motorists, so they pay much more than their fare share of the road. Even if you don't drive a care regularly (as I don't), you are subsidizing motorists' use of the roads more than they are for you. Bicycles cause no damage to roads (and I mean none whatsoever), they use 1/3 the road space-hours (thus alleviating traffic jams, a benefit to motorists), they don't pollute, etc, etc. More motorists should appreciate our presence on the roads because all the benefits outweigh any small delays caused by bicycle traffic by far. For that matter, far more delay is imposed by other motorists on each other, cyclists riding in heavy traffic merely redistribute the delays, and they often increase intersection capacity and throughput, because cyclists can line up side-by-side in the traffic queue when waiting at a traffic light. These are all a benefit to motorists (riding a motorcycle or motor scooter has a similar effect on traffic as well, also a great way to reduce traffic congestion).
-Any fees/taxes imposed on cyclists will likely decrease cycling and would probably not make any significant amount of revenue. If you're interested in a PR campaign, a Share-the-Road campaign or some other emphasis on road civility and obeying traffic laws would probably have a much greater effect on the mutual respect between motorists and cyclists. Maybe also advertising the points I've stated above about the effects of cyclists on traffic. Almost all objections that motorists have against cyclists using the roads are based on false assumptions of the right to use the road, cyclists breaking traffic laws (and understandable objection) and mistaken perception of cyclists "blocking" traffic or "causing traffic jams". Exposing these erroneous beliefs would probably benefit everyone by a much greater degree.
Just my thoughts.
-Ryan
Feb 22 2008 at 9:38 amMaintenance of biek paths needs to be mandated. I can't tell you how often I've seen roads graveled in the winter and when the snow or ice melts the gravel is just pushed onto the bike lanes. Along with the other junk that is allowed to accumulate, this makes the bike lanes unsafe.
-Doug
Feb 22 2008 at 10:25 amI want to second Elly's request that the BTA look at what we can learn from the tragic deaths that happened earlier this year with right hooks caused by big trucks. Should we pursue bike-specific education/licensing requirements for commercial drivers? Mandatory re-testing for any commercial driver involved in a traffic crash with a vulnerable user? Stiffer fines for violations? Mandatory or incented installation of truck overrun guards and better mirrors?
Feb 22 2008 at 11:08 amThe reason that I'm strongly urging BTA to group all this feedback into categories and come back to all of us with a small list of these categories (eg, "stronger enforcement against dangerous drivers," "infrastructure improvements," "cyclist and motorist education programs," etc, etc) is that there are no end of very specific, distinct suggestions that people can make. And if they read suggestions that others have made here already, they are likely to assume that they shouldn't be repetitive, and will therefore be inclined to further multiply the profusion of different suggestions by making more distinct suggestions, even though these might not reflect their own highest priorities as accurately as the ones that others have already made.
Also, we need a philosophical discussion about the purpose of these efforts. For example, are we mainly trying to improve conditions for people who already ride? Or are we mainly trying to increase ridership among segments of the population who currently do NOT ride, or ride little if at all?
Since no organization has unlimited resources, getting one's priorities straight is of the utmost importance.
Personally, I'm strongly inclined to argue in favor of a program that equally benefits both existing and would-be riders. I believe that existing, frequent riders are for the most part not in desperate need of improved facilities: they have adjusted their habits to handle existing facilities fairly well for the most part, despite whatever shortcomings they might have.
On the other hand, though, dangerous motorists are a threat to EVERYONE on the roads, existing and would-be riders.
With 40,000 people getting killed every year, thousands more seriously injured, and thousands of those in Oregon alone, a greatly invigorated enforcement program against dangerous drivers would go a long ways towards benefitting everyone. And with much better enforcement against dangerous drivers, both the perception AND reality of safety on our roads would be improved. This could possibly go further towards increasing ridership than anything else. For afterall, it is the PERCEPTION of lack of safety that inhibits riding more than anything, so students of the subject tell us.
So why not make strides to positively impact BOTH the perception AND reality of safety simultaneously? Better enforcement can do that indisputably. The results of MADD's campaign against drunk drivers proves this: in the course of twenty five years of dogged campaigning for greatly toughened standards against drunk drivers, MADD's efforts have borne fruit in the form of a 50% decrease in alcohol-involved road fatalities.
Compare the return on investment MADD has achieved with its efforts to other programs, such as bike lanes. Those returns are not as impressive. Indeed, many poorly planned bike lanes have actually DECREASED safety of riders who use them instead of improving it. Not to say that these facilities do not have their place. But once again, it is a matter of PRIORITIZING our efforts.
Feb 22 2008 at 11:12 amFirst, the easy:
1 Idaho Style — It's a good idea; it ought to be the law.
2 Brake definition clarification (does a fixie's drivetrain count?)
3 Require red rear light at night (As Shane Rhodes suggested)
4 Sidewalk (and bikelane) connections to schools (as Evan suggested)
Then, the hard/less defined:
5 Mandatory limiting of driving on clean-air action days. I can't bike if I can't breathe; make it safe to breathe.
6. Funding for re-engineeing the top-10 (or top-N) worst intersections in the state. This would, obviously, help motorists more than cyclists; but as long as it helps everyone, we all win.
+ I agree with everything that Andy (#34) said about completing bike lanes, instead of random start/stops. But I don't know how to make that into a law.
+ I also agree with Dennis Veatch (#35) about construction projects
Feb 22 2008 at 8:19 pmdisproportionately impacting cyclists. But I also don't know how to make that into a law.
The bike bill mandating 1 percent of transportation funds go to bike and pedd projects was created in 1971. It needs to be doubled for the simple reason that the mode share of cyclists has grown in 37 years, the funding should as well. And because putting more transportation dollars into a clean, responsible for of transport such as cycling fosters more riders, which creates less pollution, congestion etc.
Time for a new and improved bike bill!
I also like many of the ideas listed, Idaho style makes sense, licensing cyclists, no. Taxing cyclists absolutely not! It should be the other way around, business and the state should be PAYING cycllists int he form of tax credits for the economic savings we have by not damaging roads, not polluting the air, reducing congestion the list goes on and on… until society and especially elected officals can really see the true costs to the environment, our infrastructures and livability of communities that cars have, bikes will not get the respect they should - we have to point this out at every turn.
Feb 22 2008 at 10:19 pmUnfortunately, too many "bike projects" are more for the convenience of motorists than cyclists. Worse still, they tend to perpetuate dangerous illusions in the minds of the public.
I know from bitter personal experience that MANY motorists actually believe that in the absence of bike lanes or other specific signage, that bikes are not permitted to use the roads.
Feb 23 2008 at 7:53 amThe BTA needs to get the police and city and state to start giving big $ tickets to car drivers who hurt bike riders, assuming the bike rider was not doing anything clearly illegal.
Feb 23 2008 at 7:56 amI often encounter trouble with motorists who are trying to be polite, yet their actions mess up the flow of my trip because they don't behave like other drivers, like I'm expecting them to behave. I think it's because they sometimes want to treat me like a pedestrian, when I want to be treated like a vehicle.
Feb 23 2008 at 11:13 pmMy suggestion for solving this problem is this: Change the traffic code to state that a person with a bicycle is considered a pedestrian if they are next to the bike (both feet on the ground on the same side of the bike), but should be considered a vehicle if they are astride (standing over or mounted on the pedals) of the bike.
In this way, cyclists can give motorists a signal as to how they want to be treated.
ANY time there is a Bond Measure or Tax Increase for the Portland Parks and/or Metro Parks, with a portion of the money going towards 'Trail Building', an equitable portion of that tax money MUST be used to construct/maintain natural surface, OFF ROAD RECREATIONAL trails for mountain bicyclists. We should NOT have to DRIVE our cars, with our bikes on the back, to a suitable place to ride our bikes. Kind of defeats the purpose of 'being green!'. "Ride To Where You Ride" and "Think Globally, Ride Locally" is the motto we should ALL be able to live/ride by, whether you ride to commute, for fun, on the road or off.
Feb 24 2008 at 8:51 am