The Human Car

First off I am not sure who is against Portland building Bike Boxes but it's not me and my impression it is not the NCUTCD-BTC ether. What is under fire is Portland's methodologies of studying effectiveness of Bike Boxes.

If you guys want to install what has been proven to work in other countries great but where is the separate cyclists signal and the lead timing for the cyclists signal that goes with bike boxes in other countries? If you guys are stopping short of fully implementing what has been proven to work in other countries you are in uncharted territory.

Bekologist

Remember, Barry- Danish traffic engineers, faced with no clear design mandates on yet unimagined bike infrastructure, took the PROACTIVE approach of building and adapting facities as they went- if they would have waited to study every reiteration of public space use, nothing, or very little, would have gotten done.

Perhaps america faces a serious obstruction in the process?

I have faith that even american motorists can begin to understand variations in road striping, Barry.
European motorists driving on 'facilites heavy' public road space seem to have gotten the idea. The dubious notion anything other than strict 'vehicularity' being impossible for motorists or bicyclists to grasp falls flat.

Bike boxes work in other countries, Barry. Portland painting them green has got the chair of the NCUTCD all obstinate?

Bekologist

where are the advanced traffic signals? Seem a bit hung up by the chair of the NCUTCD ....

The Human Car

One of the things that really bothers me about the proper cycling education argument is that wrong way cycling is very prominent in the crash stats and is fairly obviously not proper bike riding. I really have to wounder about the mechanisms that keep wrong way cycling as such a popular urban myth of safe cycling. I'll assert that the lack of cyclists comfort on todays roads is a major contributer to maintaining that myth.

The Human Car

All I know is what I know and granted even that is limited (to one side) on this topic. One of the reasons why I started this thread is to help facilitate getting information out there on this non-transparent processes. If anyone has any info on obstruction of the process I would welcome that but to date all we really have is wild speculation (which would not surprise me if it was true but without any facts there is not much we can do about it.)

The Human Car

I'm sorry if I come across that way but I don't think that summarizes my position well at all.

I-Like-To-Bike

What makes you so sure that cycling mechanisms are adapted by cyclists for their own safety/myth because of a belief in safetymyths? Do you also believe that lack of comfort on certain types of roads is also a myth and that there is no objective reason for cyclists to seek alternative methods, not taught by VC-indoctrinated educators? - Even sidewalk cycling instead of parallel high speed/dense traffic roads with conditions considered by cyclists (with real time awareness of the situation) to be hostile to their cycling activity?

The Human Car

You are absolutely unbelievable. Are you advocating for cyclists to ride against traffic??? Are you arguing that sidewalk cycling is preferable to having on-road considerations for cyclists??? If not please read more carefully before you put words in my mouth. I thought I was clear that the lack of comfort on certain roads is real but how some cyclists deal with the lack of comfort in an unsafe manner, specifically the so called safety of riding against traffic, which is based on a myth, I made no mention of sidewalks. Go fight your imaginary VC windmills with someone else.

randya

The real problem with Portland's experiments is that the state of Oregon has a mandatory bike lane law, so that you are required to use whatever facilities are provided, whether they work / are safe or not. I wouldn't have any problem with what Portland is doing if I was able to ignore it if I didn't think it was safe.

Allister

It always strikes me as funny that the cylists I see blowing through red lights are usually also the ones that duck back onto the footpath immediately afterwards. Seems to me a kind of skewed sense of potential threats. The big pity is that the poeple that would most benefit from a bit of training are the least likely to seek it out.

Personally, I reckon that, given the person already has a drivers license, and knows how to operate a bike they could be taught everything they need to know about riding in traffic in about half an hour. Everything after that is just practice.

As for Portland, I'm with THC. Kudos to them for trying out something 'new', but shame on them for not putting anything in place to study their effectiveness.

Allister

I thought there was an 'unless impractacable to do so' clause in the Oregon law. ISTR it failed somewhat in trying to be too specific, though, and it's certainly apparent that the police don't really understand what constitues 'impracticable' from the cyclist's perspective and therefore apply the law blindly without even considering why the cyclist left the bikelane.

That said, it's probably more practicable to have the law modified to something a bit less dogmatic than to try and get it removed completely, so maybe that could be a fallback if advocacy efforts to have it removed fail. (Local advocates are fighting it, I presume). And, of course, educating the police wouldn't hurt either.

I-Like-To-Bike

No, I am challenging your casual use of the cryptic concept of "popular urban myth of safe cycling" as a motivating factor for other cyclists, and the need for self appointed experts to dispel these superstitious cyclists of their belief in these "myths" through some sort of myth busting education scheme.

Who/what is your source of info about this "popular urban myth of safe cycling" and its affect on cyclists' behavior? Is it the same one sided source as your info about the Portland bicycling programs?

Bekologist

admittedly, I've only ridden about 250 miles in the greater Portland area in the last year, but was never bothered by notions of mandatory use. I rode as a vehicular cyclist in and out of bike facilities without censure.

I use a virtual 'bikebox' positioning when I approach long signals or lights I can still see the white man glowing solid on the cross walks. I know it is a bonifide vehicular cycling technique to move into 'bike box' position after filtering to the head of the line.....I move into or ahead of crosswalks sometimes, usually not.

Reading the chair of the NCTUCDs' opinions on advanced traffic signals or the use of bike boxes, its readily apparant he is against the use of treatments shown to work in other industralized countries with much higher modal shares as well as lower cyclist accident rates.

The Human Car

I don't think it is that they are not doing anything to study the effectiveness of new stuff, they are not following the guidelines of the NCUTCD-BTC in studying the effectiveness of new stuff.

The Human Car

Ok I'll bite, what is your expert opinion on the motivation for cyclists to ride against traffic if it is not that they feel it is safer? What is your source of information that cycling against traffic is safer then cycling with traffic? Do you agree or disagree that cycling against traffic has a significant representation in bike/car crashes? What is your source for that information?

We need to clear up the basic non-cryptic assumptions here before we can delve into the cryptic urban myths of safe cycling.

Allister

OK. Either way, SHAME!

Bekologist

its interesting, we were talking at the bike shop today about portland bike boxes and bike specific traffic signals.

Here in seattle there are two intersections that have 'all cross' ped&bike specific signal phases, and one with a bike advocate influenced but still bike&ped specific signal for crossing intersections with heavy daily traffic flows..

Nonmotorized signal phases can and do work in other cities; portland should go ahead and start placing bike and ped specific phase lights to complement the bike boxes as well. the obstructionist nature of a 'cars first' federal traffic control board shouldn't impede portlands facilities design.

Seattle is placing their first bike box at an intersection being redesigned for greater pedestrian and bicyclist safety later this year, i believe.

I-Like-To-Bike

Assumptions is what the issue is all about. Your assumptions, that is. I am not making any about why people do not ride "perfectly safe" 100% of the time or any other fraction of their cycling. I particularly don't assume their reason/motivation is some sort of psychobabble-derived belief in myths (nor taboos/superstitions). I also don't assume that a belief in "urban safety myths" motivates motor vehicle operators to be less than perfect and indifferent about the letter of the law in their driving habits

I didn't make any issue out of the relative safety of wrong way riding or any other non-approved techniques, only your fabricated assumptions about the reason, and presumably the myth busting fix. There is no reason for me to provide numbers or information supporting my doubt in your guesswork. You made the unsubstantiated claims (i.e. assumptions) about "urban safety myths" motivating cyclist behavior; I called you on it. End of story until you state what those myths are and what makes you think anybody is motivated by them.

The Human Car

Your argument #1:
No assumptions!
Nothing can be determined on what motivates people and nothing can be done to change their behavior so nothing should change.

Your argument #2:
If I say the tooth-fairy is a myth
And since JF's myths are all bogus
Therefore the tooth-fairy myth is also bogus.

Your argument #3:
It does not matter if the tooth-fairy is real or not it is calling the tooth-fairy a myth, that is the problem.

Your Argument #4:
Since some bike facilities have been shown to reduce wrong-way riding by as much as 80%, the reason why the bike facility worked must be because that the cyclists were uncomfortable without bike facilities, which is an assumption so therefore bike facilities are a bogus myth busting fix and we should make every effort to call people on that error that bike facilities cannot possibly work because we found an assumption in there somewhere.

All wrong way cyclists I have talked to ride that way for a perceived increase in safety. If you have information that contradicts my observation then please share. You have offered no facts here but are highly offended by the word myth which is basically a belief in the lack of facts, and you seem to have an over abundance of a lack of facts.

A myth is fictional, not based on fact. Without a agreed upon common ground about the facts about wrong way riding and whether it is safe or not there is no way for me to prove that the belief that riding against traffic increases safety is a myth. If you are unaware of the numbers and facts about wrong-way riding I am at a total loss on how to respond.

I'm sorry but there are so many errors here I cannot possibly continue any semblance of a reasonable discussion with you.

The Human Car

If you get more information on this assertion please let us know. And congrats on more bike/ped friendly signal timing.

invisiblehand

Isn't this how many of the first US highways were built too?

I agree at some point that experimentation is warranted. However, no one here has really given any evidence -- other than a conversation -- that Portland authorities have failed to collect and evaluate the situation. Of course, no one has given any evidence that they have done so either.

But as a person who sees how things work politically -- at least at the federal level -- it is a much more complicated process than I ever thought prior to working here. Moreover, reversing a decision is typically much more difficult than executing it in the first place. That is, once you get these bike boxes -- perhaps much like the bike lanes that go up to the intersection -- Portland cyclists might find it pretty difficult to get rid or them.

If bike boxes are executed as a trial -- that is, we build a few, collect data, and then decide whether to pursue -- and government is well-functioning, then personally speaking, I would go along with it. Particularly if you believe that Portland cyclists have more political clout than the average US cyclist.

Feldman

Let Portland try these out and see if they work. I haven't yet heard of the bike lane law in Oregon being actively enforced and I've lived in the Northwest for thirty years. Last night I was riding in the road alongside a particularly unusable bike lane (SW Terwillegar Blvd. near Tryon Creek,) a cop drove right by me, didn't notice my "violation".

randya

believe me, the mandatory bike lane laws are enforced in Portland. Certainly not by every cop in town; but rather, selectively by specific members of the traffic division motorcycle squad.

Allister

That's a problem with those specific police, then, not the law. What's being done to retrain them?

donnamb 

Yep, the Barnum & Balzer Circus.