Here's what I don't understand. The roads are completely paid for through taxes paid by a motor vehicle drivers. Bicycle riders pay nothing. So that being said why should motorized traffic be restricted from using this particular right turn. Why not put a at all times stop at that intersection for bicycles and require them to use the crosswalk light. This is primarily an industrial area where much of the traffic is commercial. These are people making a living by driving the road with freight. Others are on their way to work. Restricting this turn for the paying public is simply stupid. Furthermore it places a heavy burden on the businesses that need and paid for that road.
My next question is why are bicycle riders so stupid they don't see the potential danger here and watch out for it? Always remember the smallest vehicle needs to look out for the bigger ones. It's true for ships at sea it is true for vehicles. Obviously the little guy has an incentive to look out for the big guy because the little guy loses. The size of a bicyclist's arrogance won't compensate for the tonnage of a vehicle.

Simply put; because bicycles don't kill people, cars do.

Cyclists should be smarter, but so should automobile drivers.

"The roads are completely paid for through taxes paid by a motor vehicle drivers. Bicycle riders pay nothing" This is a common misconception. I am glad to help clear it up for you. You see, roads are not paid for 100% by motor vehicles.

In fact most of the road funds comes from Local and State taxes (property taxes, business tax, etc.) and Federal taxes taken right of over everyones pay check. Gas taxes pay for only a small fraction of what is used to build and maintain our roads.

So you should now understand that bike rider is most likely paying his or her fair share of our road cost. In fact, that bike causes less wear-n-tear on the road making the rest of our tax dollars go farther. That rider might also own a car or two in addition to that bike. Why can't he/she use the share of the road they paid for in any legal way they want? This is America after all.

Similarly your statement about ship size and right of way is incorrect. The right away for ships at sea is not based on size but on maneuverability. The less maneuverable ship (a barge) has the right-of-way (over a ski boat) -- which is usually, but not always, the bigger ones. So a car able to run at 80 miles an hour may have to give way to a bike traveling at 15 miles an hour, or a bike going up a hill if it can not safely pass. Likewise, there are many times when a bike must give the right away to a car. The situation, and rules of the road, dictate.

Now if you really want to push my buttons lets talk about @#$%! bike riders that fly through intersections without stopping.

I thought all tax payers pay for the roads. Besides that some people actually own a car AND a bike, so if what you say is true, then some cyclists are still paying for the road.
And while Interstate/Greeley does lead to some industrial areas of the city, it also leads to a large non industrial company that employs many people (including cyclists) as well as many other small businesses and even residential areas. These people "going to work" are also keeping the economy of the city running and deserve to use the road as much as anyone.
The next thing, "Why are bicycle riders so stupid they don't see the potential danger here and watch out for it?" could just as easily be answered with this. "Why are drivers so stupid they don't see the potential danger of hitting a cyclist in a bike lane and watch out for it."
Try some better arguments next time.

Hey Allen, wanna compare tax forms? As a successful small business owner I'll bet you dollar to dime that I pay twice the taxes you do. And I bike. In fact, I take my car out maybe once a week. In addition, my bike puts far less strain on the transportation infrastructure that I am paying for.

The claim that the road infrastructure is entirely paid by gas taxes and licensing is so out of touch with reality it is almost farcical (look it up). Gas taxes are FIXED, they do no increase with gas prices, cost of living, etc. However, incomes do increase. Year after year I have been paying MORE and MORE for the roads you enjoy driving on.

So, if we're gonna do the "pay-to-play" game, for every 2 miles I ride, you get to drive one.

Deal?

Why isn't there speed and stop limits for bikers. Often time bikes past me at speeds over the speed limit. At the site of the latest accidents make a manditory stop for bikes befor proceeding.

I am a driver of 52 yrs and i pay for a licence for my car and 1 to drive it and i think that byclistist should have to have 1 for their bikes and 1 to have a bike on the any road like a car does. iI think they take advantage of this . We people have to put gas into our cars which the tax goes to maintain roads and part of it goes to bike lanes it is time for the bikers to pay their share but i am willing to bet this does not get on the news. I just think it is time they pay their share!!!!!

I am a driver of 52 yrs and i pay for a licence for my car and 1 to drive it and i think that byclistist should have to have 1 for their bikes and 1 to have a bike on the any road like a car does. iI think they take advantage of this . We people have to put gas into our cars which the tax goes to maintain roads and part of it goes to bike lanes it is time for the bikers to pay their share but i am willing to bet this does not get on the news. I just think it is time they pay their share!!!!!

I am a driver of 52 yrs and i pay for a licence for my car and 1 to drive it and i think that byclistist should have to have 1 for their bikes and 1 to have a bike on the any road like a car does. iI think they take advantage of this . We people have to put gas into our cars which the tax goes to maintain roads and part of it goes to bike lanes it is time for the bikers to pay their share but i am willing to bet this does not get on the news. I just think it is time they pay their share!!!!!

Has anyone here ever heard of Sidewalks?? I know some will say that there are some places where there are none aval. Give me an break. There should be no bikes on the road period. Maybe downtown Portland.

Has anyone here ever heard of Sidewalks?? I know some will say that there are some places where there are none avaliable. Give me an break. There should be no bikes on the road period. Maybe downtown Portland.

Reading the above post about bicyclers needing a license to ride a bike in city streets makes sense. Vehicle drivers have to have one. It only makes sense if the bikes are on the busy city streets they should have one. It is a privilege to be allowed there. Motorcyclist have to have one.
There is a reason for this. If bikers share the public street then they also should have a license.

There it could be stressed to the cyclist that when riding in traffic, even if they are riding correctly, they have to take extreme care and not expect the vehicle to react at they expected. Results could be deadly. They need to know how to ride defensively. We all have had encounters or close calls with other vehicles. The difference is if there is a collision the person in the vehicle is much more likely not to die or substain horrific injury. All of us are used to the "armour of the vehicle" and I think some bicylists think they are carrying an invisible shield when they are on the bike. Not so.

Is it worth taking off from a corner, even if you are legally correct, along side a vehicle that is expecting the biker to stay further from the vehicle or not even be there?

Many bicyclists have the habit of not stopping at signs or slowing down then running lights or stops. Personally if I see a rider dressed in all the biking attire I am on alert because a few of them think the own the road and I am not sure how aggressively they are riding. Most are great but their are the loud few that are arrogant and one is not sure how they are going to react.

At Greenly and Interstate (which hopefully keeps its' name) and places like this with so much traffic etc going on the bicyclist would be best served getting off the bike and walking the crosswalk. Why take a chance with a bike? Why punish the majority of the vehicle drivers who drive there daily. The road was there in the first place for the vehicles.

The bicyclist can certainly make the adjustment to stop and walk if it is so dangerous. There are more than likely several other areas that the bicyclist should have some separate rules. Portland has such a strong bike lobby that may not be giving the less experience bicyclists a fair shake by
demanding priviledges only very experience riders can handle.

Another really serious thing to consider is the kids riding bikes in the area. I have taught at two schools right off of interestate. After school many of my students were out ridiing their bikes on and off interstate visiting friends etc. We need strict guidlines for these kids to follow so they aren't foolishly darting around traffic and max. Many of them think they are invincible as young often do. They aren't driving cars but bicycles. Stop and walk a bike at any max or traffic interection should be mandatory for them.

I wonder if the city's response would have been different if it had been a policeman on a bike -- instead of just an average person? I wonder if the police would have handled it differently? I wonder if Sam Adams would have responded differently?

Doug

Mikie-
You couldn't be further from educated or informed on the subject. Oregon laws 814.420 and 814.430 enable bicycles to use public road ways at any time with certain restrictions. One of those restrictions is using bike lanes where available. ADditionally, under those laws a bike lane is deemed an official lane of traffic and needs to be yielded to from the right hand automobile lane. Sorry, those are the laws. Riding on sidewalks only endangers slow moving pedestrians and also has other inherent dangers for cyclists.

As for those people who think cyclists are paying taxes, this is an old, overused and completely false notion. I'd be willing to bet $$ that I make more income than most of you and therfore pay more taxes. period. I own two cars and I ride almost daily to work. Your arguments, stereotypes, and generalizations couldn't be further from what is truth.

evelyn-
we pay our share plenty, trust me. You fail to realize the contribution cyclists make to the community and your way of life. There are approx. 30,000 riders across PDX any given day...would you enjoy an additional 30,000 cars on the road at rushhour.
we all have jobs, we all pay taxes, most of us even have cars we're more than happy to pay for, then leave at home. wise up....

You've had cyclists exceed the speed limit as they pass you? Man I wouldn't want to race them! I know how hard it is to pace at 25 MPH, which is about the slowest speed limit you'll see for a car. And yes, beyond those of physics bikes have speed limits to obey - they're posted on the sides of the road on black and white signs.

The 'right hook' is caused by drivers out-accelerating cyclists when the light turns green and then turning right abruptly without seeing the cyclist who's just gotten speed back up. While this is often a truly accidental situation, it can be avoided by drivers looking and using turn signals and cyclists being acutely cautious. Mutual awareness is key, but you can't put that into law and enforce it.

As far as sidewalks go, they're more dangerous to both bikers and peds, and illegal in many towns. We're on the road as vehicles governed by the same laws you can read in your drivers manual, so don't tell us "we don't have the right" and "get on the sidewalk." If I had a nickel every time I'm told that I wouldn't have to ride my bike to work to pay taxes for roads.

Imagine a world where motorcars suddenly disappeared and there were only trucks, and bicycles around to pay for the infrastructure of highways. Walk to a section of town where the highway maintenance hasn't been as upkept as another, and you will see grass working it's way through the ashphalt or concrete working it's way to make it back to base material.
Imagine a time when bicyclist joined into a group and asked to be licensed so that they could take that money and build bike paths.

Then imagine a time when a part of the bicycles decided that this was unfair and took the case the the Oregon Supreme Court and had the bicycle tax revoked. Oh, wait a minute, it did happen. The time was around 1898 or so, and bicycle paths were all the craze, seperated from the paths where the horse wagons went. There were grand plans to build pathways from Portland to Salem, to Mt Hood, and many other places, but they all went to naught. Bicycles raced along the wooden sidewalks of the day, scorchers, they were called, and there constantly cite by mounted police for being hazards to pedestrians.

Back to today. A bike box is a great idea for those bicycles who are already ahead of the automobile. But as the motorists waits to make a legal right hand turn, oops up comes another bicyclist from behind, and rather than waiting their turn, they continue along and legally prevent the motorist from making that right hand turn, and then the light changes, and it's red again, and we're back to waiting again. Bikes might be nice, but they do need to take turns with the other modes of transportation, and as a pedestrian, who's almost been run down by more bikes and automobiles (they don't make a lot of noise, and wander all over the side streets) common courtesy is a lot more important.

But do remember, if there were zero cars, there will be a lot less revenue to upkeep any infrastructure unless everyone who is using it starts paying for parts of it. Taxes for pedestrians anyone?

Sounds like the bicycles were here in Portland before the cars. If your driving your car please remember that the cyclist you share the road with could be your best friends husband, wife or child. And yes, lets all follow the laws of the road, bicyclists and cars.

Image. A world without cars and trucks. And bicycles. We could all skip everywhere. Imagine. We could frolic in vast meadows of flowers with happy little birdies sitting on our shoulders and the big ol' sun smiling down at us.

"STEP AWAY FROM THE GLASS PIPE..."

I like Sam Adams' idea of eliminating the right turn off Greeley. Heck, let's eliminate all right turns! What about it, Sam? And while we're at it, we can rename all the pothole-filled streets to names like "Watch Out Street" or "Look Left and Right Boulevard".

We could set the timing of all the stoplights to work in a random fashion...oh, wait...they already are. Nevermind.

The "me" virus is the biggest problem. Most of the roadway users have it - just observe how hard it is to merge into traffic on a busy commute. Or how many people run red lights...their time is so much more important than the safety of other drivers, let alone someone on a bicycle.

Then we have the the infected cyclists who ignore traffic sign and lights, direction and flow and, dammit, they're saving the environment, making the streets safe for spotted owls and whales.

It's purely selfishness. No one wants to share. Common sense doesn't seem to work. Laws and traffic controls don't seem to work. Perhaps "Sharing" should be added to the curriculum in our schools. (The reading and writing parts don't seem to be working much.)

"C'mon, kids...play nice!"

Yeah, that'll happen.

That "me" virus seems to be a key to most of the posts here as well. Bicyclists should ride on the sidewalks or not at all because they inconvenience "me." The other guys don't pay as much taxes as "me." If there were fewer cars and more bikes then people like "me" who drive would have to pay more to maintain the infrastructure. (Of course, if there were fewer cars, we wouldn't need to spend as much money on the infrastructure, but I digress...)

Education would be good. Personally I think that all vehicle operators, both motorized and muscle powered, should be licenced - and should have to be tested for knowledge of driving laws on every renewal. In a heavily bicycled area like Portland that testing should heavily include bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Oh, I know, what an inconvenience for "me" to have to take a test every few years so that I can maintain the "right" to use the road. It would be so unfair for the government to truly require that the users of the road understand the laws and safety principals of the road - an hour or two every few years is just too much to ask for the little advantage of driving a car to do everything you want to...

Get real - under the current laws driving a motor vehicle is a revokable privledge, not a right. And by extension of those laws, bicyclists legally have more of a right to be on the road than motorists - there is no legal way to ban a person from bicycling since there is no licence to revoke.

These accidents are the best argument for Vehicular Cycling (Google it!) - the principal that all users of the road should be treated equally and follow the same laws. The ambiguity of right-of-way laws as they apply to bicycle lanes make these lanes more dangerous than other, proven ways to handle traffic flow.