not dead yet
not dead yet
straw man. people advocating for cyclists to be given consideration on the streets do not for the most part claim to be an oppressed minority. the analogy that is often drawn, to which anonymous might be referring, is to whether cyclists ought to allow themselves to be identified as a "community" and become somehow responsible for each other's behavior, in other words, whether i as a cyclist am supposed to be the "good negro" because some motorist somewhere hates other cyclists. also the analogy is sometimes made to whether a cyclist who believes that a striped bike lane is not safe should be willing to disregard the bike lane as an act of civil disobedience, comparing this to the back of the bus or the lunch counter. these are actually valid comparisons and have nothing to do with anyone claiming to be oppressed.
billyjak, that is what you or i would do, but the fact is the city has painted a bike lane here, which tells both motorists and cyclists that the cyclist "belongs over there." there is even a state law that says this, 814.420. so while it is "not that hard," it is made slightly harder by the striping of the bike lane.
and oregengine, the bike box was put in after a couple of people got right hooked here, and it does nothing to address the problem during the green signal phase.
interesting fedup says "blame the vehicle," when s/he probably means "blame the motorist," because in fact it is the vehicle that is to blame. if we did not have private automobiles trawling the streets we would not have all this roadkill. if you are going to drive a car through a neighborhood with four bars in one block, you better slow the hell down. oh, and kat, sorry for your loss.
and/or does your source have an agenda?
i actually disagree that making cyclists "feel" safe is a good thing in itself, and especially if the reality is that the danger has been increased. if you tell people to ride to the right of traffic that might turn right, and then a couple people get killed, and then you put in a green box that accomplishes not much, but cyclists "feel" safer, then you are lulling them into riding to the right of traffic that, um, might turn right. what is needed is a very clear message to all road users that cyclists are entitled to, and should, take the lane.
the problem the green box tries to address is the right hook. the right hook does not occur if a cyclist is not riding to the right of a motor vehicle that might turn right. where a cyclist "should" ride in approaching an intersection is far enough into the travel lane that it would be a simple matter to come around to the left of a right-turning motor vehicle. the infrastructure PBoT is putting down, including these boxes, actually direct cyclists to ride to the right, inside the right hook. the only possible benefit of the green box would be during the red signal phase, as cyclists would overtake stopped motor vehicles and assemble in the box, front and center. cyclists in what dill and monsere acknowledge was not a scientific survey tended to stay to the right, even in the green box. in trying to count "conflicts" before and after the boxes were put in, dill and monsere are hobbled by the fact that their video does not clearly indicate when the light is in the green phase.
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |