tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663089657141718051.post706965092360214768..comments2022-03-24T23:36:03.004-07:00Comments on The Upright Cyclist: Why the Upright Cyclist is grateful for all those crosswalksB+http://www.blogger.com/profile/18353381870331760316noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663089657141718051.post-18764552389491078812013-09-14T09:24:33.681-07:002013-09-14T09:24:33.681-07:00Thanks for your clarification, SBoB! I've trie...Thanks for your clarification, SBoB! I've tried to figure out the meaning of the statutory language in the past, and erred on the side of figuring it meant I needed to become as much like a pedestrian as possible.<br /><br />I think it is generally best, when pedestrians are about on these crossings, either to dismount or (if they seem amenable) to steer pretty clear of them. My sense is that folks on foot have the priority. <br /><br />The issue of "sidewalkification" is, as you point out, the underlying issue. While I am definitely seeing more folks out there commuting on bikes in Salem, it doesn't seem to reached the level needed (or, perhaps it doesn't include the particular groups or persons needed) to become significant in the eyes of our urban planning team. The whole Mission & Winter fiasco (a.k.a. "the disappearing bike lane") is a good example of this.<br /><br />So, for now, these crosswalks are about as much help as we can expect.<br /><br />The 12th and Chemeketa crossing is, both functionally and visually, rather a dog's lunch...but this is probably in part due to having so many cooks in the stew around this particular project. Mostly, I am pleased with the fact that Salem has at least ONE pretty usable bikeway through town (though LEDs at the Chemeketa & 17th crossing would be helpful, especially after the John Dashney incident--this would materially help communicate the significance of this route for pedestrians and cyclists...but there is probably some complicated set of regulations inhibiting this).<br /><br />Thanks for your comment, and your blog's continued effectiveness and creativity!B+https://www.blogger.com/profile/18353381870331760316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663089657141718051.post-43920852223685838992013-09-14T08:42:01.967-07:002013-09-14T08:42:01.967-07:00RE: "The assumption seems to be that only pe...RE: "The assumption seems to be that only people on foot—or walking their bikes—should be using them. This is, I believe, actually the law, so it is entirely appropriate."<br /><br />ORS 814.410(2) - "Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk." <br /><br />There are other details on speeds and stuff, but in general, people on bike don't have to dismount in a crosswalk, and the law expects some people on bike to use them!<br /><br />Of course, whether the "sidewalkification" of bicycling is good policy is another matter; and if in the absence of adequate facilities in the roadway, crosswalks and sidewalks are useful for people on bike, bikes more fundamentally are vehicles and should belong in the roadway with safe and comfortable facilities, appropriately separated from auto traffic. It will take a while to get there, alas.<br /><br />(After almost exactly a year, I still find <a href="http://breakfastonbikes.blogspot.com/2012/09/rr-crossing-at-chemeketa-possibly.html" rel="nofollow">12th and Chemeketa</a> rather complicated and cluttered! On the other hand, though, it works well enough as you say.)Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.com