Agreed on these points, bluesky213, except for "the bikers that squeeze between cars so they can be in the front at the light". This is actually a strategy that many bikers take to avoid NOT being seen by cars. Getting in front of the cars ensures drivers are aware of the bicyclists. Have you seen the big green painted boxes at intersections downtown? This is the same thing, and something a lot of research supports.

And this one: "the bikers that intentionally ride the center of the traffic lane when they have plenty of room to be along the curb". Nine times out of ten this is bikers merging into traffic to turn; the other 1 time out of ten is bikers passing slower bikers or cars. Bikers can be in auto lanes. They're beholden to the same rules of the road that automobiles have. If they merge into a traffic lane (which is obviously dangerous) they usually have a pretty legit reason to be there.

In a far off utopian world wouldn't it be nice if there were simply separate traffic routes? one for motor vehicles and one for bikes/pedestrians?

@bluesky213, say what you will about cyclist’s improper behavior, the majority of bike/auto related accidents are still the fault of the driver (most commonly right turns without looking). And while there are cyclists that bike drunk, I have yet to hear of a cyclist getting hit as a result (I’m not saying it hasn't happened or that anyone should be cycling drunk, I just have yet to hear of any incidents).

As for the taking a lane, cyclists do that because it's actually far safer than hugging the curb. If you're riding along next to cars you greatly increase your chances of getting doored. It also prevents people from passing to closely. It of course is situational. If there is only one lane, I think most cyclists will at least try to stay over so that cars can get around them easier, but if there are two lanes and traffic isn't that terrible I almost always take a lane for my own safety.

I both bike and drive, and I strongly disagree with your statement about bikes and cars. Yeah, I see cyclists doing dumb stuff all the time, but I have way more problems with other motorists. Neither party is infallible. The other day I watched a car and a bike run a light at the same time. There will always be dumb dangerous cyclists, just like there are a lot of dumb dangerous drivers. If you try to not hold it against cyclists as a group every time one runs a red light, we’ll try not to hold it against you every time someone decides to pass with only two inches. In the end, we’re all just trying to get somewhere (preferably in one piece).

Graham is "hiding the truth from these good people"
redundant arguments are his bread and butter.

I don't think this article was suggesting that auto drivers are entirely at fault. As a matter of fact:
"The trio was not wearing helmets or using lights, which improve safety."
"In April, the city labeled SE Foster as a [sic] dangerous "High-Crash Corridor." Former NFL quarterback Joey Harrington proved the city's designation correct: A driver hit him while he was biking on SE Foster, sending him to the hospital on July 31."

It looks like they point out the faults of the bikers in the article.

Interesting. I'd wager a guess that motor vehicle traffic also spikes between may and september.

more people ride bikes when it's not raining
more people drive/bus in the rain

Regarding "In a far off utopian world wouldn't it be nice if there were simply separate traffic routes? one for motor vehicles and one for bikes/pedestrians?", benngy97227, if you're going to dream, dream big. Wouldn't it be nice if Americans stopped being such a bunch of doofuses and biked even more than folks in Amsterdam or Denmark? Or, better yet, wouldn't it be nice if there were so few cars that *drivers* were relegated to second-class-citizen status, got (at most) one lane per street, and had to drive at 10 mph, subject to a $5,000 fine for the first violation and 90 days in jail for the second violation? Where parking garages were torn down and the land turned into city parks because there were too few cars for the parking garages to remain economically viable? Where I-5 was used only for freight and folks happily travelled by much better public transportation than we have now? Where the incidence of respiratory illnesses dropped for folks living next to busy streets because their air was no longer being polluted by passing cars? Where the number of pedestrians and bikers hurt by collisions with cars dropped to zero? Where we could stop having this stupid discussion again and again and again because sanity won?

@scott. I bike to Vancouver from Portland every weekend. But I also drive. No, it wouldn't be nice to get 6 mpg and burn 3 times the fossil fuels because I was being forced to drive far slower than the most efficient (and most environmentally friendly) speed. There are countries like that, though. Somalia I'm sure has roads bad enough that force people to 10 mph. Not a model to emulate, I'm thinking.

Hmmmm, which part is unappealing?
- Saving lives? There's a clear inverse relationship between speed and the likelihood of a pedestrian surviving a car collision. Even at 20 mph, there's a 5% chance that a pedestrian hit by a car will die. At 30 mph, that rises to about 40%, depending on which of two studies you believe (http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm). Is your convenience really more important than the lives of pedestrians?
- Effective punishment? Current punishment clearly doesn't do the trick--a $50 or even $100 speeding ticket isn't sufficient to prevent most drivers from driving 5 mph or more over the speed limit all the time. If you think of that speeding as a possible cause of a pedestrian's death, it becomes negligent homicide and makes a REALLY stiff fine or even the threat of jail time make much more sense.
- Improving the health of people who live near busy streets? I don't have the stats readily at hand, but y'all have seen the studies, too: respiratory illnesses are directly linked to particulates from car exhaust, and the more car exhaust you inhale, the more likely you are to have a respiratory illness. Not rocket science.
- Ridding cities of blights like the average shopping-mall parking lot (can you say stream-destroying storm runoff?) or a parking garage in the center of an otherwise-productive city center? There's a reason cities promote public transit into city centers: office buildings are more productive than parking garages.

Surely there are lots more reasons to follow the lead of northern Europe and make people think about owning cars and driving instead of letting them trash their environment and the lives of their neighbors with little thought to the consequences. Yes, it's draconian in light of current cultural norms, but those cultural norms are so out of whack with reality that it'll take major changes just to reduce the destruction by half.