2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The problem is that people who are jerks in a car are also jerks on a bike. The same people that run stop signs on bikes are also the ones that run them while in their car.

I think how we proceed with infastructure is simply a matter of what our goals are. Do we want as many people to ride in as safe a manner as possible? Well, let's look at somewhere like Amsterdam and see what they're doing. Do we want only really skilled & confident people to ride at their own risk? That's going be a different set of infastructure.

Without deciding what our goals are, we can't answer these questions about whether bikes should be treated as cars or have their own special laws.

But no matter what, I think it's the responsibility of bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians alike to follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not. It's the only way to be predictable. And being predictable will keep you safer than anything infastructure that could be built.

posted 5 years ago
view in context