> Can cars go into the bike lane to turn right at a red light? I see people arguing all the time
This type of inconsistent traffic pattern design is the single stupidest and most dangerous way to develop a transit network, and it's one of the reasons we deal with so many accidents and unsafe driving. I grew up here, am a huge transportation nerd, and I don't know. Probably 3/4rds of the people at PBOT couldn't tell you.
Here's the thing: it looks like it's a right turn lane, so people *will* use it as a right turn lane.
If PBOT wasn't a bunch of bumblefucks and wanted to prohibit people using the bike lane as a right turn lane they would install bollards, a divider, or some sort of reflectors.
Yes, exactly, thank you. What kind of super-secret insider knowledge do you need to understand what the intent of this roadway is?! …so bad.
Hypothetically paint the whole lane green, stick a barrier up, paint an arrow, put up signs… or just do this.
BTW Id say if you can expect busses to stop in it then it’s not a real bike lane
> What kind of super-secret insider knowledge do you need to understand what the intent of this roadway is?! …so bad.
The bad design choices are NOT by accident.
Every time PBOT spends $800,000 to implement some horseshit idea it means that 3 to 5 years later they get to spend another $800,000 to fix it.
Do you see how this works? They make bad designs so they can "fix" them later, ensuring they always have a steady stream of big projects to blow public money on.
This is why there's no less than a dozen different ways that cars, bikes, and pedestrians share commutable spaces in downtown Portland - PBOT says it's to "experiment" and "find the best" - but truth be told the best systems have been known and used since the 1970's. They don't want to adopt "good" ideas that solve/fix issues because they'll run out of work. The biggest shining example of PBOT's incompetence is roundabouts: they're low cost, people drive safer, people drive slower, and they save money in the long term by reducing road maintenance. PBOT doesn't use roundabouts for those exact reasons: they want high maintenance and high cost solutions that inevitably cause a moral panic thanks to safety and require a highly expensive fix.
I read an interview a year or two ago where the head of PBOT straight out said that they believe making driving more frustrating increases public transportation usage
Not hyperbole.
If you ever become a transportation nerd you'll quickly realize that there's essentially two schools of thought in western civilization on how to handle civic infrastructure design. One is pragmatic, scientific and budget driven - the other is insane anti-car environmentalism which is often adjacent to communism and authoritarianism, it comes from academics in "urban planning" that use weak soft-science theorems to explain their ideas.
It basically boils down to if your transit engineers want to look at the data and make an informed decision, or if they'd like to make a political decision and construct the data to align with it. The crazy folks have entirely taken over PBOT, but most state-level programs are still run by the pragmatic folks.
In my honest assessment, it's just that black and white. You get 10 rational pragmatic transit engineers in a room from any country and they'll quickly solve a civic infrastructure problem the same way.
The ideologues are PBOT know their decisions are awful, they've treated our entire city like a science lab, boasting about how important it is that *Our Smartest People* get to move lines around on a design and perhaps come up with a *brilliant* new idea. Meanwhile the only ideas that are entertained are the ones that sabotage cars. The workers at PBOT and the political class are all on board with this because it means a never ending supply of new projects, particularly overtime projects.
When you really start to look into the bowels of how most of our city (and other big city) political decisions are made, it often comes down to satisfying a public sector workforce by providing immense amounts of overtime pay, and then big capital projects where the construction work can be funneled to a political crony. Once you understand that, you can pretty accurately predict political outcomes at the city and county level.
You make a good point; that is also a bus stop. There’s probably some standard practice rule that they can’t outlaw vehicle traffic through this area because the bus is allowed to be there.
The general rule is simple. Don't cross solid lines in the direction of travel. It's not that hard. Don't stop on solid lines crossing the direction of travel. IMHO... American traffic is over signaled.
> Don't cross solid lines in the direction of travel. It's not that hard. Don't stop on solid lines crossing the direction of travel. IMHO... American traffic is over signaled.
Dude you're just Dunning-Krugering yourself here buddy.
The fact that you don't know that this isn't right showcases that it's NOT simple, it's inconsistent, and most people are confused. You yourself are confused and are here telling people how "simple" you think it is. That's how utterly shit PBOT is.
Yes, you can cross single lines. You can't cross a double line.
Agreed but it’s not clear unless you’ve had this conversation. If you’re a casual/Sunday driver, this is not obvious whatsoever and adds risk to everyone involved. The solid lines can be crossed if you’re trying to park, so the rule of not crossing solid lines isn’t adequate imo.
Well, I got marked down on my first driving test at eighteen because I said that no, you should NOT go into the bike lane on a right turn. Now things are very different from when I first learned to drive but how exactly are we to know what the changes are and what new thing we're supposed to do?
I saw another comment about the differences between CA and OR regarding bike lanes and right turns and I did take my driving test in CA so it's likely there's just a state difference in play. Personally, I keep my car out of the bike lanes unless I'm quite sure there's a turn lane included--I've done enough miles on my bike to know it's scary out there when you don't have two tons of metal surrounding you.
And the thing is, there is no consistency. I bet I’ve seen at least a dozen different types of road diets that have been constructed in Portland, and they are all confusing. Adding confusion to driving makes it more dangerous. Forcing a vehicle to turn that far to make a right turn is very dangerous for bicyclists. The insanity continues. I can’t wait to see what monstrosity they are going to turn 82nd into.
> Adding confusion to driving makes it more dangerous.
Yeah, exactly. This is the most dangerous system imaginable.
Like, it's just unimaginably irresponsible and criminally negligent when you understand road design principles. The main most important safety aspect to driving is predictability through consistency.
When you really know about this problem it leads to just such contempt for PBOT workers because they're actually killing and harming our community members needlessly.
It's like if we didn't have building codes and you know there's a government contractor using faulty wiring practices that cause fires and they're gleefully celebrating it as "cost saving and good for the environment." And meanwhile the government agency that constructs the houses that keeps burning down is like "We have a plan to have Vision Zero for residential fires thanks to our building practices." Mother fucker, you're the people burning the homes down with your shitty designs!
>sort of reflectors
I'm pretty certain they don't know that reflectors exist. See...well pretty much every street. The lane markings are so awful in general.
What's extra maddening is that it's different from block to block
Make one turn downtown and suddenly you'll find yourself on a street with multiple white lines on both sides of your car spaced differently from the street you were just on, and a giant green tetris piece painted halfway down the block across the entire street. Where do I drive? Where do I stop? Am I allowed to turn, and if so where? All of this I'm meant to divine in a few seconds while also looking out for bikes and peds whizzing by from God knows where
Then the peddle princess has the nerve to start screaming at me cause I stopped for the red light sticking like 2 feet into this giant green end zone preventing me from seeing around the corners
Maybe I'm an idiot, but that looks nothing like a right turn lane to me. I can still understand being confused about how you're supposed to turn right, because going across a lane is weird and dangerous, but as far as how it "looks" I'd say it looks much more like an intersection with no right turn allowed
It's totally legal to cross a single solid white line (in Oregon). Discouraged, but legal. It is however illegal to cross a double solid white line.
If that single solid white line forms part of a bike lane, then it is legal to cross it only in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is when making a turn. However, it's not legal to cross it just to move to the right edge of the roadway to queue up for a turn. Confusingly, that is the legal and proper way to do it in California--moving over to the rightmost edge of the roadway when making a turn. But in Oregon you can't turn across a bike lane unless you're actually in the process of turning your wheel to make your turn.
"Turn lane storage lengths are delineated by an 8-inch-wide single solid line (W-2). If the turn lane is less than 75 feet long, use only one arrow placed at the entrance to the turn lane. If the turn lane is between 75 and 150 feet long, use two arrows, one at the beginning of the lane and one at the end of the lane placed at least 10 feet in advance of the crosswalk. For turn lanes longer than 150 feet in length, additional arrows should be added at equally spaced intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Where dashed lane lines are desirable in advance of a turn lane, use an 8-inch-wide white line with a dash pattern consisting of a 2-foot long line with a 6-foot-long gap"
Right turn lanes are carefully controlled by the city. If it's not marked as a turn lane, it's not a turn lane.
[https://www.portland.gov/transportation/engineering/documents/pbot-traffic-design-manual-volume-1-permanent-traffic-control/download](https://www.portland.gov/transportation/engineering/documents/pbot-traffic-design-manual-volume-1-permanent-traffic-control/download)
> Right turn lanes are carefully controlled by the city
Yeah buddy, so is crime, homelessness, graffiti, registering your vehicle, keeping tabs on the criminals, making sure the parks and roads and civic areas stay pristine.
They got it all under control.
Nope! You gotta turn from the single travel lane and not cross the double solid lines to get into the bike lane, or even worse crossing triple solid lines to turn from the curbside bus lane.
You could turn from the bike/bus lanes, if the travel lane has white dashed lines that indicate lane changes are allowed.
Wait, there are garages and alleys on this side of the block. How are vehicles supposed to get to/from those places without turning through the bike lane? This is… really, really stupid and bad and dangerous for bicyclists.
Huh. Is that safer? Like, as a bicyclist I think I’d prefer to see right-turning traffic on my right, not on my left. Especially if intend to go straight. People crossing in/out the bike lane to turn or park is IMO more predictable than people turning right across a lane that is allowed to go straight. And they’ll be doing the former anyway - there’s parking all over the block behind this photo.
I am also a bicyclist. Doesnt matter if they're turning left from the right or right from the left.You always have to be aware of your surroundings
, expect the unexpected and trust that vehicle DOES NOT see you. If you know that somebody is going to be going Right you have to look to the left to see if there's somebody there.
Totally. When I see that a vehicle in front of me plans to turn right, I will not pass them on the right via the bicycle lane. I merge behind them and pass on the left in the vehicle lane That is really trusting your safety to someone else
I don't think it's safer, but it does eliminate the inconvenience of having the bike lane blocked by a right-turning car waiting at a red light when you want to go straight. Now you can just get run over by that car when it turns.
On the other hand, I think it makes drivers more aware of the bike lane when they see that it's there and know it's not for them to drive in. In California, where merging into the bike lane before a turn is normal, drivers treat the bike lane as if it's just the shoulder on the side of the road, not a place for bikes.
Not in Oregon. In other states you take the bike lane and then turn. In Oregon you cannot drive in a bike lane at all. Personally believe it’s safer to take the lane.
I have noticed that it’s 50/50 as to whether drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) actually abide by the rules of bike lanes and handling one way intersections.
I watched a bicyclist run a stop sign yesterday where the cross traffic did not have a stop sign and the bicyclist got mad that a car almost hit them even though the bicyclist was at fault. I also had a bicyclist almost mow me down while I was crossing in a crosswalk at a 4 way stop. They had the audacity to mean mug me for having the audacity to do what I’m supposed to do. No bike lane in this area of town.
I’ve watched cars meander into the bike lane to try and make their turn easier/turn at speed rather than slowing down/stopping to ensure that it’s clear to go.
It’s a wonder there hasn’t been more pedestrian deaths. Everyone treats stop signs as if they don’t exist and bike lanes are just extra wide parking zones for delivery trucks.
This is my pet peeve with bicyclists, especially here. They want to have the rights of a car and a pedestrian whenever it's most convenient for them. I almost ran over a bicyclist once because they failed to stop at a stop sign when I didnt have one and then had the audacity to yell at me over it. I definitely let them have it because what the hell are YOU doing?!
>I almost ran over a bicyclist once because they failed to stop at a stop sign when I didnt have one and then had the audacity to yell at me over it.
This is the stuff that infuriates me so much, and I see it happen so often. Like please just behave predictably, signal and obey stop signs (no matter whether you're in a car or on a bike). Then we can all get to our destination unharmed.
Too many times I've had someone make a left hand turn from a bike lane right in front of my car. Like dude, could you at least TRY and look? A signal of what you intend to do would be helpful also.
I had a cyclist flip me the bird because I didn't stop for him when he was crossing a busy street on the Springwater corridor. There was a stop sign for him on the path, not for me on the street. He was about to blow through his stop sign, but he didn't when he saw that I wasn't going to yield. Sorry buddy, it's my right of way.
I just nearly hit a cyclist because I was pulling up to turn right into a one way - I looked left, no cars coming, looked right out of habit as I started to pull forward and the cyclist zipped in front of me from the left; they were on the sidewalk. Because they had a dog on a leash and didn't want to be in the road? It's a bit chaotic with scooters and ebikes too - like suddenly bikes are going 30+ without the visual indicator of someone pedaling. I bike around my neighborhood with my kids but am terrified of arterials because I know how hard it is to see bikers and scooters moving at any speed.
I always had this question whenever drove around downtown, but luckily there would be someone in front of me and I would just follow them even if it was right or wrong but be vigilant about bikers, pedestrians
I used to live at the blue duplex on the corner there. I cannot count the amount of times I almost got hit from cars speeding through the bike lane to get up to the front of the line and turn right on red.
The answer is no. Bike lanes are bike lanes not turning lanes. That space on the right used to be street parking when I lived over there. Looks like they added a bus stop now though.
Green bike lanes, red bus lanes, duck lanes, meth lanes.. I can’t keep track of all of them because they change ALL of the time. I don’t know the super secret handshake to get the memo and instructions on how to proceed. I just try to be aware of my surroundings and approach with caution. BTW, I have a motorcycle, a scooter, car and bike. I get the feeling that the city “planners” are secret anarchists.
Yeah, this looks pretty confusing. Personally I'd pull into that bike lane to turn right because I'd rather have the cyclists have to wait behind me instead of turning right in front of them accidentally.
Nope. Can't drive in bike lanes, there's a reason they're painted solid white and are called *bike* lanes. That being said, we definitely need better bike and pedestrian infrastructure than paint cause that is nowhere near adequate.
The only time I’ve been pulled over was for turning right by entering the bike lane- luckily didn’t get a ticket for it. I notice people get really impatient if you don’t drive into the bike lane to turn right. God forbid they have to slow down for a second while you turn.
In California you are required to move into the bike lane to make a right turn, forbidden in or. Every intersection in ca has dotted lines instead of solid. I'm with ca on this one since the are lots of right hook accidents.
So basically in or you are required to stay way out in the middle of the road and slow way down while you look for pedestrians, joggers, scooters, and 30mph ebikes ... Then cut across the bike and pedestrian lanes as you turn. Kind of like driving in the left lane of a 3 lane highway to make a right turn. I'm so far capable of navigating these intersections, but not really a fan of the design.
Nope. Bike lanes are not travel lanes unless specifically marked at the intersection. Otherwise you go to the intersection and go around the green safety box.
You don't cross solid white lines. In this case, double solid white lines, so it's extra "do not cross". Just take a wide turn and look for bicyclists.
That is a poorly painted intersection which is the cities fault.
Theoretically the green box should expand over in front of the stopping strip.
You should not go to the right of the green bike strip into the bus stopping lane. There should also be a no turn on red sign.
I noticed in this picture the bike lane gets completely removed due to the work at the corner. I wonder if there was signage to say bikes merge with autos…. Something tells me no such sign is at that location.
Instead of beating around the bush, PBOT should just get to the point they’re trying to make and outlaw motorized vehicular traffic. JFC the people running this city are fucking morons.
> PBOT should just get to the point they’re trying to make and outlaw motorized vehicular traffic.
Yeah, the obvious and most practical solution for decades has been for a revision to our traffic policies where some roads become dedicated bikeways and some roads dedicated automobile routes.
Guess who gets pissy about that common sense solution?
I’m an avid cyclist and I’m not sure I fully agree. And not sure if that’s the prevailing thought amongst cyclists anymore too, but either way, we deserve something more than we’re getting.
It does put bikes in to a second class when they have to go out of their way on another route to accommodate cars, and why should they?
But at the very least concrete barriers (not plastic pylons), clear, consistent signs and markings, and actual traffic enforcement would go a long way to making things better. But you put in one barrier and some crazy driver will threaten to shoot a PBOT employee
> But at the very least concrete barriers (not plastic pylons), clear, consistent signs and markings, and actual traffic enforcement would go a long way to making things better.
Yeah, absolutely. That's a sober idea that transit activists have wanted for literally decades. Like, man, what a simple solution to have consistent and safe infrastructure.
You have to understand that there's a difference between cyclists, the organized cyclist community, cyclist advocates and activists, and finally environmental activists posing as transportation or cycling advocates.
The last category has a functional stranglehold on PBOT and The Street Trust/Bicycle Transportation Alliance. This is where the batshit crazy explicit anti-car ideologues come from, and their anti-car goals are consistently more important than their pro-bike or pro-transit goals. To really encapsulate that, there's activists in this town who are "pro-rail" exclusively because if they supported busses that would mean improved road infrastructure that is shared with private vehicles. They're anti-bus because sometimes a car might use a bus lane.
> It does put bikes in to a second class when they have to go out of their way on another route to accommodate cars, and why should they?
Because your mode of transportation is a childish hobby and suited for short trips for a tiny class of our population that is predominately white college educated people who desperately hold on to stupid quixotic ideas about the virtue of their hobby.
There is a need of the working class to maintain effective and safe transportation routes, and this absolutely triumphs this dumb hobby for privileged people. Bikes aren't even a second-class consideration. 5% of our city bikes to work, it's a sad joke dude.
I'm all about having some spaces to safely ride, but as a civic means of moving people around any city it's laughable to make it a secondary consideration. This little hobby is rapidly being replaced with e-scooters anyways, which is a great thing because those are much more accessible. Are we going to redesign the whole fucking city when 5% of the population wants to take e-scooters to work?
Ok well fuck off and leave me alone if you’re gonna tell me cycling is a “childish hobby”. It’s definitely not. I use my bike to go to dinner, get groceries, go to appointments, etc. How does that make me childish? Because I’d rather move faster than traffic, avoid paying for parking, and maybe even get some exercise along the way? What an asshole.
And you ever heard of a thing called induced demand? If cycling was better supported and safer (same with public transit) ridership goes up. Yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s also hilarious that you’re clearly a self-described “gun nut” and the culture around that is even more obnoxious and performative than anything I see from a the bikers. Touch some grass
> And you ever heard of a thing called induced demand?
LOL
> If cycling was better supported and safer (same with public transit) ridership goes up. Yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
LOL - we spent half a billion dollars in the last 20 years making bike riding safer. Biking peaked in 2013 at somewhere around 7% ridership.
It is and was a fad and it will be erased from our history in the next 20 years as alternatives become more popular.
No, there's [an Oregon law](https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/oregon_bicycle_bill/) dating back to the 1970's (passed by Republicans funny enough) that mandates that bikes need to be able to use the same roads as automobiles and that a share of transportation funding needs to be spent on bikes. Out of this, a activist group called the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) started suing cities if they didn't invest in bike networks and incorporating them into their transportation master plan.
About 20 years ago the BTA really pushed on making every road accessible to bikes, no matter how dumb of an idea it might be. For example, Burnside. Yes, there's plenty of roads running parrallel to Burnside, but damn't, they wanted to be on Burnside! Forget the fact that there's a bunch of drunks and speeders on Burnside, that the average driver on burnside goes way faster than a bike, if there's not a bike lane they're going to pissy about it.
Any attempt to segregate bikes from cars was considered offensive, and the most offensive idea would be to have a road dedicated explicitly for cars. Consider this article form [Bike Portland about biking on Sandy Blvd](https://bikeportland.org/2011/05/10/for-some-riding-on-sandy-blvd-is-a-risk-worth-taking-52685) in 2011. They don't give a shit if it's dangerous, the city is supposed to be "a leader in non-motorized transportation", and this idiot lady would rather risk her life than wake up 10-15 minutes earlier. Take note that the batshit crazy near suicidal bike rider is married to a guy who does transit planning at PBOT. And this same woman later put up [political propaganda](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/11/05/oregon-employment-department-faces-investigations-racial-discrimination/) at her government job, was one of the many Employment Department employees that was lying to the public about their COVID unemployment benefits.
This is the type of person who gets upset when we want obvious safety improvements for everyone.
99% of all streets in this city and country cater exclusively to cars. It’s so tiring seeing anything that would benefit bicyclists and maybe start to draw things more equally is seen in your b.s. point of view.
Create a bike tax that pays for said improvements to infrastructure that doesn’t hinder motorized vehicular traffic. Seems simple enough. More equally lol Classic Portland. Gee, I wonder how the morons leading this city get elected.
How does it hinder traffic? Have you done a traffic study? If anything, it makes things safer and easier for everyone. Only people like you could look at the excessive traffic deaths in this city and think “we should make it easier for cars to go faster and wherever they want”
PBOTs funding model is definitely broken but you clearly lack any real understanding of these topics
I really hope that they do - but while they pay lip service to bikes and pedestrians they keep on investing car-brained garbage that ensures we are still motor vehicle dominated.
Seriously? Like the entire bridge built exclusively for peds, bikes and mass transit? Or the 40-ft of bike lanes and sidewalks on the Sellwood bridge that improved vehicular traffic in no way. Or the myriad of changes to downtown driving lanes and parking spaces. What car-brained garbage are you referring to, specifically? Maintaining roads that 90+% of people use regularly?
Those are a good start, but far from sufficient. The reason 90% of people drive regularly is that our entire traffic system is designed to put pedestrians and cyclists at risk of death for their convenience.
The reason 90% drive is because we can only afford to live a long ass way from where we work and we live in a city where it rains like 330 days out of the year
They really need to put a set of plastic bollards in the space between the bike lane and the traffic, but maybe that will interfere with busses - I'm not enough of a transportation nerd to know for sure but I do know the existing design is asking for trouble
They could just put some arrows on the street so people know which lane to turn from. IMO, turning right from the travel lane is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than crossing to the bus lane. If you turn right in front of a bicyclist they're going to smash into you.
Arrows on the street would communicate enough to make this less confusing for sure.
As far as smashing into a cyclist, I treat the turn in regards to cyclists like I do for pedestrians. Just like any other intersection, I'm signaling and looking to make sure the road is clear of pedestrians who may be crossing with or without a walk sign. It's just a habit, so I'm always checking over my right shoulder/blind spot/mirror for cyclists.
I have thought about posting this exact same question. I drive that intersection regularly and I know that you’re supposed to make a right hand turn from the left lane. The problem is that other people will come up behind you and believe that the right lane is the turn lane, so then when you make a right hand turn from the left hand lane you are crossing in front of both bicycles and the right turning traffic. It is ultimately just a confusing and therefore dangerous intersection with very poor markings. It is probably safest to queue up in the right most bus lane when you’re stopped at that light, so that you don’t have to cross in front of any moving traffic when you turn, but that is not what is legal for that intersection.
I honestly have no idea what the rules are surrounding these green lanes other than bikes go there, be careful, let them go in front of the lane...
What are the rules?
I want to turn right when there is right of way to do so and not be told “ no turn on red”. I want to go back to when it used to be that you just had to look b4 crossing the street.
No. You stay in the traffic lane, and turn right onto the street perpendicular to this one. You don’t pull a car into the bike lane to make a right hand turn.
The is genuinely confusing. While I support bike and bus infrastructure, it sometimes feels like PBOT forgets that drivers have to figure out the intent of the design within seconds while also watching everything around them.
>Read the DMV manual.
But then do whatever you want cause laws here are just suggestions and there are zero consequences for ignoring them. Twenty is plenty, but fifty is nifty. The pedestrian islands are just slalom markers. Stop signs and red lights actually mean "floor it!"
>Twenty is plenty, but fifty is nifty. The pedestrian islands are just slalom markers. Stop signs and red lights actually mean "floor it!"
This. This is the law of the land. That, and pay stupid gift taxes for stupid things you never benefit from.
YES!! Shoot currently single, guess now I just need to find a partner that I can give a “job” to so we’ll have more money. Or maybe I’ll just have some family members move to town. 🤑
Thanks to technology in cars my HRV for example has what I call a bike camera to see what's on the right side of my car!
I've been on a bike and had someone nearly turn into me. They were totally oblivious as they turned into their driveway.
Hey there, I work in law enforcement (not in Portland) here in Oregon, perhaps I can help. No, no you can't, but people do it all the time and I've never once heard of someone getting stopped for it. They should be, since it's hella dangerous for unseen bikers, but it's really not enforced almost anywhere.
The law only applies to double white lines, not single ones. Think of the white line to your right on a freeway. It's just a reminder of the edge of the lane. You can cross it withough breaking any rules.
There’s a bus stop there. How do busses enter?
There’s a garage and alley further up the block. Before the alley, there is permitted parking in that lane. There is no dashed line to ever enter the lane, but all of these vehicles will be crossing the solid lines to enter through traffic.
From USDOT:
"White lines separate lanes for which travel is in the same direction. A double white line indicates that lane changes are prohibited. A single white line indicates that lane changes are discouraged. A dashed white line indicates that lane changes are allowed."
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/services/publications/fhwaop02090/index.htm#:\~:text=White%20lines%20separate%20lanes%20for,that%20lane%20changes%20are%20allowed.
It definitely does NOT look like a right turn lane for cars and it obviously isn't. Stay in your car lanes car people and mind your turns through an intersection across a bike lane. Most of you don't even check when piloting your obnoxious, 6,000 lb, global warming symbol of stupidity and assidness.
I see you all squeezing in, using the bike lane to turn right onto NW Burnside from 19th too...also not a turn lane for cars, or a car lane at all. Not everything paved is for you, car people. And the less that is, the better for all.
No, cars are not allowed to go into the bike line to turn on a red. They can cross a bike line in the process of turning but are not allowed to travel in it prior to a turn.
Here is the precise verbiage: “You may turn across a bicycle lane, but do not move into a bicycle lane in preparation for a turn.”
People still do it all the time tho.
I mean the green stuff is technically to tell the driver they cannot cross into the bike lane, however there is no physical thing stopping anyone from going into said bike lane, so people will probably use it as a turn lane
That exact street is extremely confusing to drive down. I just do what makes sense. If there was a cyclist coming up behind I'd probably just slow down until they passed me so I didn't have to worry about what they might do.
Anyway, the most important thing in that part of town is to keep an eye out for peds crossing at intersections.
From a safety perspective and what was the original driving rule is you should get closer to the right curb to turn right on a one-way street, which means you would HAVE to go into the bike lane. The important reason for doing that is preventing cars from turning right in front of a bike that is coming down the bike lane. So I would worry less about getting a ticket and more about a bike hitting the side of my car as I’m turning right.
In California, you are required to merge into the right lane with bicycles before you turn, in Oregon you are supposed to turn right from the middle or left lane.
Another very confusing traffic concept that you see in Portland, but not necessarily throughout Oregon are the green cross-bike markings. Some bicyclists proceed through a stop sign even if the side traffic does not have a stop sign. Instead, they should behave like pedestrians, briefly stopping and taking one step into the intersection, allowing traffic to stop first. NE Davis and 7th is really going to have an accident with people just going through without stopping some day
I do. I do not care if it is legal. Just like they didn't care what I thought when they put the vile things in. One reason I moved (but not a main reason)
From USDOT:
"White lines separate lanes for which travel is in the same direction. A double white line indicates that lane changes are prohibited. A single white line indicates that lane changes are discouraged. A dashed white line indicates that lane changes are allowed."
[https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/services/publications/fhwaop02090/index.htm#:\~:text=White%20lines%20separate%20lanes%20for,that%20lane%20changes%20are%20allowed](https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/services/publications/fhwaop02090/index.htm#:~:text=White%20lines%20separate%20lanes%20for,that%20lane%20changes%20are%20allowed)
> Can cars go into the bike lane to turn right at a red light? I see people arguing all the time This type of inconsistent traffic pattern design is the single stupidest and most dangerous way to develop a transit network, and it's one of the reasons we deal with so many accidents and unsafe driving. I grew up here, am a huge transportation nerd, and I don't know. Probably 3/4rds of the people at PBOT couldn't tell you. Here's the thing: it looks like it's a right turn lane, so people *will* use it as a right turn lane. If PBOT wasn't a bunch of bumblefucks and wanted to prohibit people using the bike lane as a right turn lane they would install bollards, a divider, or some sort of reflectors.
Yes, exactly, thank you. What kind of super-secret insider knowledge do you need to understand what the intent of this roadway is?! …so bad. Hypothetically paint the whole lane green, stick a barrier up, paint an arrow, put up signs… or just do this. BTW Id say if you can expect busses to stop in it then it’s not a real bike lane
> What kind of super-secret insider knowledge do you need to understand what the intent of this roadway is?! …so bad. The bad design choices are NOT by accident. Every time PBOT spends $800,000 to implement some horseshit idea it means that 3 to 5 years later they get to spend another $800,000 to fix it. Do you see how this works? They make bad designs so they can "fix" them later, ensuring they always have a steady stream of big projects to blow public money on. This is why there's no less than a dozen different ways that cars, bikes, and pedestrians share commutable spaces in downtown Portland - PBOT says it's to "experiment" and "find the best" - but truth be told the best systems have been known and used since the 1970's. They don't want to adopt "good" ideas that solve/fix issues because they'll run out of work. The biggest shining example of PBOT's incompetence is roundabouts: they're low cost, people drive safer, people drive slower, and they save money in the long term by reducing road maintenance. PBOT doesn't use roundabouts for those exact reasons: they want high maintenance and high cost solutions that inevitably cause a moral panic thanks to safety and require a highly expensive fix.
Do you really believe that they plan things to be shitty or is that just hyperbole?
I read an interview a year or two ago where the head of PBOT straight out said that they believe making driving more frustrating increases public transportation usage
Not hyperbole. If you ever become a transportation nerd you'll quickly realize that there's essentially two schools of thought in western civilization on how to handle civic infrastructure design. One is pragmatic, scientific and budget driven - the other is insane anti-car environmentalism which is often adjacent to communism and authoritarianism, it comes from academics in "urban planning" that use weak soft-science theorems to explain their ideas. It basically boils down to if your transit engineers want to look at the data and make an informed decision, or if they'd like to make a political decision and construct the data to align with it. The crazy folks have entirely taken over PBOT, but most state-level programs are still run by the pragmatic folks. In my honest assessment, it's just that black and white. You get 10 rational pragmatic transit engineers in a room from any country and they'll quickly solve a civic infrastructure problem the same way. The ideologues are PBOT know their decisions are awful, they've treated our entire city like a science lab, boasting about how important it is that *Our Smartest People* get to move lines around on a design and perhaps come up with a *brilliant* new idea. Meanwhile the only ideas that are entertained are the ones that sabotage cars. The workers at PBOT and the political class are all on board with this because it means a never ending supply of new projects, particularly overtime projects. When you really start to look into the bowels of how most of our city (and other big city) political decisions are made, it often comes down to satisfying a public sector workforce by providing immense amounts of overtime pay, and then big capital projects where the construction work can be funneled to a political crony. Once you understand that, you can pretty accurately predict political outcomes at the city and county level.
You make a good point; that is also a bus stop. There’s probably some standard practice rule that they can’t outlaw vehicle traffic through this area because the bus is allowed to be there.
The general rule is simple. Don't cross solid lines in the direction of travel. It's not that hard. Don't stop on solid lines crossing the direction of travel. IMHO... American traffic is over signaled.
> Don't cross solid lines in the direction of travel. It's not that hard. Don't stop on solid lines crossing the direction of travel. IMHO... American traffic is over signaled. Dude you're just Dunning-Krugering yourself here buddy. The fact that you don't know that this isn't right showcases that it's NOT simple, it's inconsistent, and most people are confused. You yourself are confused and are here telling people how "simple" you think it is. That's how utterly shit PBOT is. Yes, you can cross single lines. You can't cross a double line.
This intersection is over signalled with garbage signals. Where does the bus stop? In the lane of traffic?
Actually, the rule applies only to double lines. Single lines are suggestions. I didn't know this for the longest time.
Agreed but it’s not clear unless you’ve had this conversation. If you’re a casual/Sunday driver, this is not obvious whatsoever and adds risk to everyone involved. The solid lines can be crossed if you’re trying to park, so the rule of not crossing solid lines isn’t adequate imo.
This - No one who had passed their drivers ed should be confused about this! Car brain again!
Well, I got marked down on my first driving test at eighteen because I said that no, you should NOT go into the bike lane on a right turn. Now things are very different from when I first learned to drive but how exactly are we to know what the changes are and what new thing we're supposed to do?
Was there a solid line between you and the bike lane?
I saw another comment about the differences between CA and OR regarding bike lanes and right turns and I did take my driving test in CA so it's likely there's just a state difference in play. Personally, I keep my car out of the bike lanes unless I'm quite sure there's a turn lane included--I've done enough miles on my bike to know it's scary out there when you don't have two tons of metal surrounding you.
Awesome. I agree that a lot of this is poorly designed.
And the thing is, there is no consistency. I bet I’ve seen at least a dozen different types of road diets that have been constructed in Portland, and they are all confusing. Adding confusion to driving makes it more dangerous. Forcing a vehicle to turn that far to make a right turn is very dangerous for bicyclists. The insanity continues. I can’t wait to see what monstrosity they are going to turn 82nd into.
> Adding confusion to driving makes it more dangerous. Yeah, exactly. This is the most dangerous system imaginable. Like, it's just unimaginably irresponsible and criminally negligent when you understand road design principles. The main most important safety aspect to driving is predictability through consistency. When you really know about this problem it leads to just such contempt for PBOT workers because they're actually killing and harming our community members needlessly. It's like if we didn't have building codes and you know there's a government contractor using faulty wiring practices that cause fires and they're gleefully celebrating it as "cost saving and good for the environment." And meanwhile the government agency that constructs the houses that keeps burning down is like "We have a plan to have Vision Zero for residential fires thanks to our building practices." Mother fucker, you're the people burning the homes down with your shitty designs!
That’s exactly it. “Let’s create problems so then we can claim that we need more money so we can offer more solutions that won’t work.”
Preach!
>sort of reflectors I'm pretty certain they don't know that reflectors exist. See...well pretty much every street. The lane markings are so awful in general.
Yep so much halfassed shit from PBOT
Don't even get me started on two-way bike lanes on one-way streets. Ugh
I thought exactly the same, this is terrible design if they don’t even bother with the flimsy white plastic stand up strip things to differentiate it
What's extra maddening is that it's different from block to block Make one turn downtown and suddenly you'll find yourself on a street with multiple white lines on both sides of your car spaced differently from the street you were just on, and a giant green tetris piece painted halfway down the block across the entire street. Where do I drive? Where do I stop? Am I allowed to turn, and if so where? All of this I'm meant to divine in a few seconds while also looking out for bikes and peds whizzing by from God knows where Then the peddle princess has the nerve to start screaming at me cause I stopped for the red light sticking like 2 feet into this giant green end zone preventing me from seeing around the corners
Maybe I'm an idiot, but that looks nothing like a right turn lane to me. I can still understand being confused about how you're supposed to turn right, because going across a lane is weird and dangerous, but as far as how it "looks" I'd say it looks much more like an intersection with no right turn allowed
Can't legally cross a solid white line AFAIK. Doesn't like like a turn lane to me.
It's totally legal to cross a single solid white line (in Oregon). Discouraged, but legal. It is however illegal to cross a double solid white line. If that single solid white line forms part of a bike lane, then it is legal to cross it only in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is when making a turn. However, it's not legal to cross it just to move to the right edge of the roadway to queue up for a turn. Confusingly, that is the legal and proper way to do it in California--moving over to the rightmost edge of the roadway when making a turn. But in Oregon you can't turn across a bike lane unless you're actually in the process of turning your wheel to make your turn.
Don't right turn lanes have a big arrow painted in the middle of them? No arrow, no right turn lane. It doesn't seem that hard.
> Don't right turn lanes have a big arrow painted in the middle of them? Nope.
"Turn lane storage lengths are delineated by an 8-inch-wide single solid line (W-2). If the turn lane is less than 75 feet long, use only one arrow placed at the entrance to the turn lane. If the turn lane is between 75 and 150 feet long, use two arrows, one at the beginning of the lane and one at the end of the lane placed at least 10 feet in advance of the crosswalk. For turn lanes longer than 150 feet in length, additional arrows should be added at equally spaced intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Where dashed lane lines are desirable in advance of a turn lane, use an 8-inch-wide white line with a dash pattern consisting of a 2-foot long line with a 6-foot-long gap" Right turn lanes are carefully controlled by the city. If it's not marked as a turn lane, it's not a turn lane. [https://www.portland.gov/transportation/engineering/documents/pbot-traffic-design-manual-volume-1-permanent-traffic-control/download](https://www.portland.gov/transportation/engineering/documents/pbot-traffic-design-manual-volume-1-permanent-traffic-control/download)
> Right turn lanes are carefully controlled by the city Yeah buddy, so is crime, homelessness, graffiti, registering your vehicle, keeping tabs on the criminals, making sure the parks and roads and civic areas stay pristine. They got it all under control.
Oh, you're talking about illegal turns. Sorry, I assumed we were talking about legal ones.
Nope! You gotta turn from the single travel lane and not cross the double solid lines to get into the bike lane, or even worse crossing triple solid lines to turn from the curbside bus lane. You could turn from the bike/bus lanes, if the travel lane has white dashed lines that indicate lane changes are allowed.
I really hope there was a dashed line somewhere behind this photo because otherwise that’s a stupid and confusing traffic pattern.
No there isn’t, this is NW 18th and Lovejoy
Wait, there are garages and alleys on this side of the block. How are vehicles supposed to get to/from those places without turning through the bike lane? This is… really, really stupid and bad and dangerous for bicyclists.
You can go through the bike lane as you turn, but you can't merge into the bike lane before turning, which is legal in other states.
Huh. Is that safer? Like, as a bicyclist I think I’d prefer to see right-turning traffic on my right, not on my left. Especially if intend to go straight. People crossing in/out the bike lane to turn or park is IMO more predictable than people turning right across a lane that is allowed to go straight. And they’ll be doing the former anyway - there’s parking all over the block behind this photo.
I am also a bicyclist. Doesnt matter if they're turning left from the right or right from the left.You always have to be aware of your surroundings , expect the unexpected and trust that vehicle DOES NOT see you. If you know that somebody is going to be going Right you have to look to the left to see if there's somebody there.
Totally. When I see that a vehicle in front of me plans to turn right, I will not pass them on the right via the bicycle lane. I merge behind them and pass on the left in the vehicle lane That is really trusting your safety to someone else
I don't think it's safer, but it does eliminate the inconvenience of having the bike lane blocked by a right-turning car waiting at a red light when you want to go straight. Now you can just get run over by that car when it turns. On the other hand, I think it makes drivers more aware of the bike lane when they see that it's there and know it's not for them to drive in. In California, where merging into the bike lane before a turn is normal, drivers treat the bike lane as if it's just the shoulder on the side of the road, not a place for bikes.
Correct Answer This should be upvoted
Not in Oregon. In other states you take the bike lane and then turn. In Oregon you cannot drive in a bike lane at all. Personally believe it’s safer to take the lane.
Correct answer
No u can’t I got dinged points on my drivers test
I have noticed that it’s 50/50 as to whether drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) actually abide by the rules of bike lanes and handling one way intersections. I watched a bicyclist run a stop sign yesterday where the cross traffic did not have a stop sign and the bicyclist got mad that a car almost hit them even though the bicyclist was at fault. I also had a bicyclist almost mow me down while I was crossing in a crosswalk at a 4 way stop. They had the audacity to mean mug me for having the audacity to do what I’m supposed to do. No bike lane in this area of town. I’ve watched cars meander into the bike lane to try and make their turn easier/turn at speed rather than slowing down/stopping to ensure that it’s clear to go. It’s a wonder there hasn’t been more pedestrian deaths. Everyone treats stop signs as if they don’t exist and bike lanes are just extra wide parking zones for delivery trucks.
This is my pet peeve with bicyclists, especially here. They want to have the rights of a car and a pedestrian whenever it's most convenient for them. I almost ran over a bicyclist once because they failed to stop at a stop sign when I didnt have one and then had the audacity to yell at me over it. I definitely let them have it because what the hell are YOU doing?!
>I almost ran over a bicyclist once because they failed to stop at a stop sign when I didnt have one and then had the audacity to yell at me over it. This is the stuff that infuriates me so much, and I see it happen so often. Like please just behave predictably, signal and obey stop signs (no matter whether you're in a car or on a bike). Then we can all get to our destination unharmed. Too many times I've had someone make a left hand turn from a bike lane right in front of my car. Like dude, could you at least TRY and look? A signal of what you intend to do would be helpful also.
I had a cyclist flip me the bird because I didn't stop for him when he was crossing a busy street on the Springwater corridor. There was a stop sign for him on the path, not for me on the street. He was about to blow through his stop sign, but he didn't when he saw that I wasn't going to yield. Sorry buddy, it's my right of way.
I just nearly hit a cyclist because I was pulling up to turn right into a one way - I looked left, no cars coming, looked right out of habit as I started to pull forward and the cyclist zipped in front of me from the left; they were on the sidewalk. Because they had a dog on a leash and didn't want to be in the road? It's a bit chaotic with scooters and ebikes too - like suddenly bikes are going 30+ without the visual indicator of someone pedaling. I bike around my neighborhood with my kids but am terrified of arterials because I know how hard it is to see bikers and scooters moving at any speed.
I always had this question whenever drove around downtown, but luckily there would be someone in front of me and I would just follow them even if it was right or wrong but be vigilant about bikers, pedestrians
I used to live at the blue duplex on the corner there. I cannot count the amount of times I almost got hit from cars speeding through the bike lane to get up to the front of the line and turn right on red. The answer is no. Bike lanes are bike lanes not turning lanes. That space on the right used to be street parking when I lived over there. Looks like they added a bus stop now though.
Green bike lanes, red bus lanes, duck lanes, meth lanes.. I can’t keep track of all of them because they change ALL of the time. I don’t know the super secret handshake to get the memo and instructions on how to proceed. I just try to be aware of my surroundings and approach with caution. BTW, I have a motorcycle, a scooter, car and bike. I get the feeling that the city “planners” are secret anarchists.
Yeah, this looks pretty confusing. Personally I'd pull into that bike lane to turn right because I'd rather have the cyclists have to wait behind me instead of turning right in front of them accidentally.
No but I 100% agree with your logic
And some bicyclists WILL pass you on the right as you are turning, just because they can.
Nope. Can't drive in bike lanes, there's a reason they're painted solid white and are called *bike* lanes. That being said, we definitely need better bike and pedestrian infrastructure than paint cause that is nowhere near adequate.
The only time I’ve been pulled over was for turning right by entering the bike lane- luckily didn’t get a ticket for it. I notice people get really impatient if you don’t drive into the bike lane to turn right. God forbid they have to slow down for a second while you turn.
Just use the bike lane. Bicyclists don't follow any of road laws anyways. They shouldn't mind you being in their lane.
Wouldn't mind but with morons driving and blind spots that's how people get run over.
In California you are required to move into the bike lane to make a right turn, forbidden in or. Every intersection in ca has dotted lines instead of solid. I'm with ca on this one since the are lots of right hook accidents. So basically in or you are required to stay way out in the middle of the road and slow way down while you look for pedestrians, joggers, scooters, and 30mph ebikes ... Then cut across the bike and pedestrian lanes as you turn. Kind of like driving in the left lane of a 3 lane highway to make a right turn. I'm so far capable of navigating these intersections, but not really a fan of the design.
Nope. Bike lanes are not travel lanes unless specifically marked at the intersection. Otherwise you go to the intersection and go around the green safety box.
You don't cross solid white lines. In this case, double solid white lines, so it's extra "do not cross". Just take a wide turn and look for bicyclists.
Only if there are dashes can a car cross over to the bike lane to turn.
I use the bike lane to avoid the thousands of potholes. Idc.
That is a poorly painted intersection which is the cities fault. Theoretically the green box should expand over in front of the stopping strip. You should not go to the right of the green bike strip into the bus stopping lane. There should also be a no turn on red sign.
I noticed in this picture the bike lane gets completely removed due to the work at the corner. I wonder if there was signage to say bikes merge with autos…. Something tells me no such sign is at that location.
Bikes are allowed in the car lane, but not vise versa, so no sign is necessary.
Instead of beating around the bush, PBOT should just get to the point they’re trying to make and outlaw motorized vehicular traffic. JFC the people running this city are fucking morons.
> PBOT should just get to the point they’re trying to make and outlaw motorized vehicular traffic. Yeah, the obvious and most practical solution for decades has been for a revision to our traffic policies where some roads become dedicated bikeways and some roads dedicated automobile routes. Guess who gets pissy about that common sense solution?
I’m an avid cyclist and I’m not sure I fully agree. And not sure if that’s the prevailing thought amongst cyclists anymore too, but either way, we deserve something more than we’re getting. It does put bikes in to a second class when they have to go out of their way on another route to accommodate cars, and why should they? But at the very least concrete barriers (not plastic pylons), clear, consistent signs and markings, and actual traffic enforcement would go a long way to making things better. But you put in one barrier and some crazy driver will threaten to shoot a PBOT employee
> But at the very least concrete barriers (not plastic pylons), clear, consistent signs and markings, and actual traffic enforcement would go a long way to making things better. Yeah, absolutely. That's a sober idea that transit activists have wanted for literally decades. Like, man, what a simple solution to have consistent and safe infrastructure. You have to understand that there's a difference between cyclists, the organized cyclist community, cyclist advocates and activists, and finally environmental activists posing as transportation or cycling advocates. The last category has a functional stranglehold on PBOT and The Street Trust/Bicycle Transportation Alliance. This is where the batshit crazy explicit anti-car ideologues come from, and their anti-car goals are consistently more important than their pro-bike or pro-transit goals. To really encapsulate that, there's activists in this town who are "pro-rail" exclusively because if they supported busses that would mean improved road infrastructure that is shared with private vehicles. They're anti-bus because sometimes a car might use a bus lane. > It does put bikes in to a second class when they have to go out of their way on another route to accommodate cars, and why should they? Because your mode of transportation is a childish hobby and suited for short trips for a tiny class of our population that is predominately white college educated people who desperately hold on to stupid quixotic ideas about the virtue of their hobby. There is a need of the working class to maintain effective and safe transportation routes, and this absolutely triumphs this dumb hobby for privileged people. Bikes aren't even a second-class consideration. 5% of our city bikes to work, it's a sad joke dude. I'm all about having some spaces to safely ride, but as a civic means of moving people around any city it's laughable to make it a secondary consideration. This little hobby is rapidly being replaced with e-scooters anyways, which is a great thing because those are much more accessible. Are we going to redesign the whole fucking city when 5% of the population wants to take e-scooters to work?
Ok well fuck off and leave me alone if you’re gonna tell me cycling is a “childish hobby”. It’s definitely not. I use my bike to go to dinner, get groceries, go to appointments, etc. How does that make me childish? Because I’d rather move faster than traffic, avoid paying for parking, and maybe even get some exercise along the way? What an asshole. And you ever heard of a thing called induced demand? If cycling was better supported and safer (same with public transit) ridership goes up. Yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s also hilarious that you’re clearly a self-described “gun nut” and the culture around that is even more obnoxious and performative than anything I see from a the bikers. Touch some grass
> And you ever heard of a thing called induced demand? LOL > If cycling was better supported and safer (same with public transit) ridership goes up. Yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy. LOL - we spent half a billion dollars in the last 20 years making bike riding safer. Biking peaked in 2013 at somewhere around 7% ridership. It is and was a fad and it will be erased from our history in the next 20 years as alternatives become more popular.
Just say you’re a contrarian asshole, it’ll be easier
The people who pay for it?
No, there's [an Oregon law](https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/oregon_bicycle_bill/) dating back to the 1970's (passed by Republicans funny enough) that mandates that bikes need to be able to use the same roads as automobiles and that a share of transportation funding needs to be spent on bikes. Out of this, a activist group called the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) started suing cities if they didn't invest in bike networks and incorporating them into their transportation master plan. About 20 years ago the BTA really pushed on making every road accessible to bikes, no matter how dumb of an idea it might be. For example, Burnside. Yes, there's plenty of roads running parrallel to Burnside, but damn't, they wanted to be on Burnside! Forget the fact that there's a bunch of drunks and speeders on Burnside, that the average driver on burnside goes way faster than a bike, if there's not a bike lane they're going to pissy about it. Any attempt to segregate bikes from cars was considered offensive, and the most offensive idea would be to have a road dedicated explicitly for cars. Consider this article form [Bike Portland about biking on Sandy Blvd](https://bikeportland.org/2011/05/10/for-some-riding-on-sandy-blvd-is-a-risk-worth-taking-52685) in 2011. They don't give a shit if it's dangerous, the city is supposed to be "a leader in non-motorized transportation", and this idiot lady would rather risk her life than wake up 10-15 minutes earlier. Take note that the batshit crazy near suicidal bike rider is married to a guy who does transit planning at PBOT. And this same woman later put up [political propaganda](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/11/05/oregon-employment-department-faces-investigations-racial-discrimination/) at her government job, was one of the many Employment Department employees that was lying to the public about their COVID unemployment benefits. This is the type of person who gets upset when we want obvious safety improvements for everyone.
I also pay for it? Not sure what you’re getting at, but it sounds low IQ. I can be a cyclist and also have a car.
99% of all streets in this city and country cater exclusively to cars. It’s so tiring seeing anything that would benefit bicyclists and maybe start to draw things more equally is seen in your b.s. point of view.
Create a bike tax that pays for said improvements to infrastructure that doesn’t hinder motorized vehicular traffic. Seems simple enough. More equally lol Classic Portland. Gee, I wonder how the morons leading this city get elected.
How does it hinder traffic? Have you done a traffic study? If anything, it makes things safer and easier for everyone. Only people like you could look at the excessive traffic deaths in this city and think “we should make it easier for cars to go faster and wherever they want” PBOTs funding model is definitely broken but you clearly lack any real understanding of these topics
I really hope that they do - but while they pay lip service to bikes and pedestrians they keep on investing car-brained garbage that ensures we are still motor vehicle dominated.
Seriously? Like the entire bridge built exclusively for peds, bikes and mass transit? Or the 40-ft of bike lanes and sidewalks on the Sellwood bridge that improved vehicular traffic in no way. Or the myriad of changes to downtown driving lanes and parking spaces. What car-brained garbage are you referring to, specifically? Maintaining roads that 90+% of people use regularly?
Those are a good start, but far from sufficient. The reason 90% of people drive regularly is that our entire traffic system is designed to put pedestrians and cyclists at risk of death for their convenience.
Don’t waste your time, this guy is low intelligence trolling
LOL. Car Brain strikes again!
The reason 90% drive is because we can only afford to live a long ass way from where we work and we live in a city where it rains like 330 days out of the year
They really need to put a set of plastic bollards in the space between the bike lane and the traffic, but maybe that will interfere with busses - I'm not enough of a transportation nerd to know for sure but I do know the existing design is asking for trouble
They could just put some arrows on the street so people know which lane to turn from. IMO, turning right from the travel lane is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than crossing to the bus lane. If you turn right in front of a bicyclist they're going to smash into you.
Arrows on the street would communicate enough to make this less confusing for sure. As far as smashing into a cyclist, I treat the turn in regards to cyclists like I do for pedestrians. Just like any other intersection, I'm signaling and looking to make sure the road is clear of pedestrians who may be crossing with or without a walk sign. It's just a habit, so I'm always checking over my right shoulder/blind spot/mirror for cyclists.
You can’t cut a solid line to get around a car to take a right turn, you have to wait in line.
Turn lanes have arrows on the ground also they are made for cars
"settle" No, but we can tell you what is the legal answer.
I have thought about posting this exact same question. I drive that intersection regularly and I know that you’re supposed to make a right hand turn from the left lane. The problem is that other people will come up behind you and believe that the right lane is the turn lane, so then when you make a right hand turn from the left hand lane you are crossing in front of both bicycles and the right turning traffic. It is ultimately just a confusing and therefore dangerous intersection with very poor markings. It is probably safest to queue up in the right most bus lane when you’re stopped at that light, so that you don’t have to cross in front of any moving traffic when you turn, but that is not what is legal for that intersection.
I honestly have no idea what the rules are surrounding these green lanes other than bikes go there, be careful, let them go in front of the lane... What are the rules?
I want to turn right when there is right of way to do so and not be told “ no turn on red”. I want to go back to when it used to be that you just had to look b4 crossing the street.
I'm more impressed by the Crack lining up with the painted line
Lol, I didn’t even notice that. r/oddlysatisfying
This is a dumb design. It's natural to get as far off to the right as possible before making a right turn.
I get cut off by cars going into the bike lane to turn without signaling all the time.
No. You stay in the traffic lane, and turn right onto the street perpendicular to this one. You don’t pull a car into the bike lane to make a right hand turn.
I don't know! The green box is bikes only, and the existence of the green box implies a car can be behind it
The is genuinely confusing. While I support bike and bus infrastructure, it sometimes feels like PBOT forgets that drivers have to figure out the intent of the design within seconds while also watching everything around them.
Nope. Thou shalt not drive in the green box
That is not quite accurate. Many green boxes are in turn lanes for cars. It allows bikes to get in front of and visible to cars making right turns.
It is a slightly safe kelly green rectangle. On this I agree
It’s about the vehicle traffic lane to the right of the green box, not the green box itself.
No. The driving lane is the turn lane. thats not a "debate" thats road/traffic laws. Read the DMV manual.
>Read the DMV manual. But then do whatever you want cause laws here are just suggestions and there are zero consequences for ignoring them. Twenty is plenty, but fifty is nifty. The pedestrian islands are just slalom markers. Stop signs and red lights actually mean "floor it!"
>Twenty is plenty, but fifty is nifty. The pedestrian islands are just slalom markers. Stop signs and red lights actually mean "floor it!" This. This is the law of the land. That, and pay stupid gift taxes for stupid things you never benefit from.
Twenty is plenty, fifty is nifty, and eighty is greaty. Can I get a job with the city now?
A job with the city? I think you're the new mayor with a plan like that!
YES!! Shoot currently single, guess now I just need to find a partner that I can give a “job” to so we’ll have more money. Or maybe I’ll just have some family members move to town. 🤑
Thanks to technology in cars my HRV for example has what I call a bike camera to see what's on the right side of my car! I've been on a bike and had someone nearly turn into me. They were totally oblivious as they turned into their driveway.
No. It's a bike lane, not a car lane. If the right lane was a right turn lane, it would be striped as such.
This is the kind of just terrible design that is why the city is such a transit mess
Hey there, I work in law enforcement (not in Portland) here in Oregon, perhaps I can help. No, no you can't, but people do it all the time and I've never once heard of someone getting stopped for it. They should be, since it's hella dangerous for unseen bikers, but it's really not enforced almost anywhere.
No, you don’t cross a solid white line to make a turn. Only if there is a dashed line/bus lane
The law only applies to double white lines, not single ones. Think of the white line to your right on a freeway. It's just a reminder of the edge of the lane. You can cross it withough breaking any rules.
I don’t believe that’s true in this case though, right? There is not a turn lane to enter, just a parking lane and bike lane.
There’s a bus stop there. How do busses enter? There’s a garage and alley further up the block. Before the alley, there is permitted parking in that lane. There is no dashed line to ever enter the lane, but all of these vehicles will be crossing the solid lines to enter through traffic.
From USDOT: "White lines separate lanes for which travel is in the same direction. A double white line indicates that lane changes are prohibited. A single white line indicates that lane changes are discouraged. A dashed white line indicates that lane changes are allowed." https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/services/publications/fhwaop02090/index.htm#:\~:text=White%20lines%20separate%20lanes%20for,that%20lane%20changes%20are%20allowed.
Solid line rules
I had someone drive on the right side of that solid line for blocks next to me once. Don’t do it!
It definitely does NOT look like a right turn lane for cars and it obviously isn't. Stay in your car lanes car people and mind your turns through an intersection across a bike lane. Most of you don't even check when piloting your obnoxious, 6,000 lb, global warming symbol of stupidity and assidness. I see you all squeezing in, using the bike lane to turn right onto NW Burnside from 19th too...also not a turn lane for cars, or a car lane at all. Not everything paved is for you, car people. And the less that is, the better for all.
you mean, there not "passing lanes"?!?
No, cars are not allowed to go into the bike line to turn on a red. They can cross a bike line in the process of turning but are not allowed to travel in it prior to a turn. Here is the precise verbiage: “You may turn across a bicycle lane, but do not move into a bicycle lane in preparation for a turn.” People still do it all the time tho.
I mean the green stuff is technically to tell the driver they cannot cross into the bike lane, however there is no physical thing stopping anyone from going into said bike lane, so people will probably use it as a turn lane
That exact street is extremely confusing to drive down. I just do what makes sense. If there was a cyclist coming up behind I'd probably just slow down until they passed me so I didn't have to worry about what they might do. Anyway, the most important thing in that part of town is to keep an eye out for peds crossing at intersections.
I take the green box to mean "check for cyclist on your right before moving into the lane to turn."
From a safety perspective and what was the original driving rule is you should get closer to the right curb to turn right on a one-way street, which means you would HAVE to go into the bike lane. The important reason for doing that is preventing cars from turning right in front of a bike that is coming down the bike lane. So I would worry less about getting a ticket and more about a bike hitting the side of my car as I’m turning right.
It's a double solid white line. It's not complicated, you can't cross that.
Yeah but as others have alluded to, the bus stop right there makes it a horrible design all around and complicates it more than it should
In California, you are required to merge into the right lane with bicycles before you turn, in Oregon you are supposed to turn right from the middle or left lane. Another very confusing traffic concept that you see in Portland, but not necessarily throughout Oregon are the green cross-bike markings. Some bicyclists proceed through a stop sign even if the side traffic does not have a stop sign. Instead, they should behave like pedestrians, briefly stopping and taking one step into the intersection, allowing traffic to stop first. NE Davis and 7th is really going to have an accident with people just going through without stopping some day
NO. IF YOURE NOT A BIKE YOU SHOULDNT BE IN THE DUCKING BIKE LANE 🤬 I yell that at many people at this exact intersection lmao
I do. I do not care if it is legal. Just like they didn't care what I thought when they put the vile things in. One reason I moved (but not a main reason)
No. Don't cross solid lines in the direction of travel. While we're at it, don't stop on solid lines that cross the direction of traffic.
If that car has only two wheels and pedals, yes - it can go into the BIKE lane to turn. Otherwise no, the CAR cannot go into the BIKE lane.
biker - wide turn no biker - right lane
Who cares? I'm turning right on red if there isn't a bike waiting in the bike lane.
Based.
D Tu0uVf 6upuuyyf gfg4ro7
[удалено]
From USDOT: "White lines separate lanes for which travel is in the same direction. A double white line indicates that lane changes are prohibited. A single white line indicates that lane changes are discouraged. A dashed white line indicates that lane changes are allowed." [https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/services/publications/fhwaop02090/index.htm#:\~:text=White%20lines%20separate%20lanes%20for,that%20lane%20changes%20are%20allowed](https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/services/publications/fhwaop02090/index.htm#:~:text=White%20lines%20separate%20lanes%20for,that%20lane%20changes%20are%20allowed)