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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

When it comes to bike lanes I think both sides should credit the other a bit:

The pro bike lanes folks could admit:

* there are unresolved issues with bike lanes at intersections
* bike lanes can give an excuse to drivers to think that bikes don't
belong on the rest of the road

the Vehicular Cycling folks could admit:

* bike lanes are preferred by most cyclists (and thus increase the
number of riders on the road)
* more cyclists appears to a good thing from a safety standpoint (which
is really surprising when you realize that by definition a lot of the
new cyclists are inexperienced)

The pro bike lane folks could then work more on fixing their issues and
the VC folks could maybe actually help them do so.

posted 5 years ago
view in context