Fear is the motivating factor in most driving. I realized this yesterday when a woman hit the gas at a stop sign to make sure I wouldn’t be in her way on my bicycle (I had the right-of-way). It wasn’t just an aggressive move; this was a driver who didn’t want to lose precious seconds to get to wherever it was that was so vital she get to. She was afraid of being delayed and being late, so she punched the pedal and shifted into stupid.

But that’s typical driving behavior. People are afraid of something almost the entire time they’re behind the wheel: Afraid of being late. Afraid of getting stuck in traffic. Afraid of not finding a good parking spot. Afraid they’ll miss their exit. Afraid they’ll pick the wrong route. Afraid they’ll run out of gas. Afraid they bought the wrong damn car. Afraid that someone will cut them off on the freeway. Afraid the “one time” they run the yellow (ie, the just-turned-red-but-I-see-yellow) a cop will nail them. Afraid the “one time” they speed on the free way a cop will nail them. Afraid afraid afraid. Afraid they won’t have the perfect driving experience that proves they are a Real American.

Al Gore summarized recent research on how emotions impact reason thus:

…snap judgments based principally on our emotional reactions [is] a useful trait. It allows us to make quicker decisions, and it helps us avoid dangerous situations. However, our use of emotions to make decisions can also cloud judgment. When an emotional reaction like fear is especially strong, it can completely overwhelm our reason process. — The Assault on Reason, pg 29

Another common driving emotion: anger. One reason I am glad I rarely drive is that, after 35 years behind the wheel, I was less and less patient with the stupidity and carelessness of other drivers. My own driving skills were deteriorating. I had no business driving on a regular basis, so I was happy to sell my car and confine myself to the bus, my bike and walking. And I was a good driver. My driving skills were excellent, proven by years of a clean record and several near-tragedies I avoided by using good driving techniques taught me by my father (who also gave my the driving philosophy I passed along to my sons: Assume every driver is an idiot trying to kill you).

My problem was not my skills. It was not that I disliked driving; I love driving; I especially love driving sports cars really fast, something not possible without breaking the law late at night when the roads are clear. No, my problem wasn’t with driving; it was with how I reacted to my overall driving environment. One way or another, I drove with stress, and that made me an increasingly bad driver.

I do not believe I am unique. The number of emotionally hampered drivers is large, and more so on busy and clogged streets. The stress of not having a clear road ahead gives rise to strong emotions like anger and fear…

And then they see a bicycle. Not stuck in traffic, not drumming their fingers as they are delayed by the dumbass making a left turn against traffic. The bicycle that will blow through lights and stop signs (they know they will, even if they don’t witness it). The bicycle that is using the road that drivers pay for with gas taxes. Those freaking bicycles that have no regard for law or even for the cars the roads were built for.

They see this, and it pisses them off. While they fight traffic, stressing the whole time about all that is going wrong with the day because of the goddamn traffic and goddamn stupid drivers, the bicycle slips by them on that bike path that takes away space that would help cars move better. The freedom of bicycles, and their seeming fearlessness (it’s either that or stupidity; you could die riding one of those things on these streets) is yet another poke against the buzzing nest of hornets that is the anger fomenting in their mind.

So when a can blasts its way from the stop sign a few feet in front of me to make sure I don’t get in her damned way, I get it. She’s driving with a full load of fear, and seeing my pedal my careless way just is too much. The only thing she can do (apart from letting it go, of course, but why would she do that?) is hit the gas and let the car do what she can’t: authenticate her place in the world’s power structure.

While I pedal on with my dad’s advice tattooed across my mind.

July 21st, and it appears that Summer has come and gone. Two hot days and that’s that. We now have a bit of late-afternoon sunshine but it’s not very warm. Perhaps there’ll be a turnaround in August. But the cold, wet winter/spring appears to be more typical of this atypical 2010 than anything else.

For bicycling, this is a mixed bag. Great weather does get people on their bike. In many ways, of course, that’s a good thing. Better to have them riding their bicycles than driving a car. How many of those people will keep pedaling when the weather is like this, or worse? Maybe a few, especially those who notice how much more enjoyable the commute is, even with the effort. Bicycling in the rain is rarely fun, but traffic jams are almost never enjoyable.

The down side to more bikes is a more dangerous bicycling environment. It’s not just having more riders crowding the small spaces available for bicycling. A lot of casual riders just don’t have the chops. And more bicycles on the limited, and subpar, bicycling lanes and paths means more opportunity for mishap. We do not have any programs in place to help deal with increases in ridership. The permanent idiots who flaunt law, safety and courtesy become even more dangerous. The rider who doesn’t think to look over his or her shoulder before turning needs to be watched for. Frankly, I am safer when it’s pouring with rain and the roads are less crowded with bikes.

But that’s not a good thing, either. We need more people on bikes, not fewer, and those people need to know what the hell they are doing. That means we need education programs, which do not exist, at least not at the scale necessary for Portland’s burgeoning bicycling population. And at a time when money for the basics is scarce, funds for training programs may be impossible to find.

So we need to find other ways to get that job done. I have some ideas, and I’ll be sharing them in the days to come. In the meantime, enjoy the summer whenever it bothers to make an appearance and please, ride safe. Keep your bicycle maintained by professionals (Corey’s giving my Surly the once-over tomorrow). You never know who it is out to get you: car, truck, bike or pedestrian, or just plain bad luck.

Gerik Kransky of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) explains some of the more vital who, whats and whens about JPACT — the Metro organization that plays a major role in transportation decision, including spending tens of millions of dollars. JPACT will soon have a chance to make a significant contribution to the development of "active" transportation — bicycles, pedestrians, etc — or dump the money into freight. Thanks for the clear and timely info, Gerik.

JPACT: Demystifying One of Portland's Powerful Acronyms

Posted by: Gerik
Jun 23 2010, 5:23 pm

Anyone interested in more bike lanes, boulevards, and cycletracks should pay close attention to Metro’s Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT). Right now JPACT is weighing especially important funding considerations, and we need to influence their decision to protect funding for bicycles, sidewalks, and trails.

Metro’s JPACT is a public entity that advises our regional government on hundreds of millions of dollars of transportation funding annually. It is made up of twelve local elected leaders and five transportation and state agency officials.

On July 8, they are planning to set funding targets for $20 – 24 million dollars in Regional Flexible Funds for the 2014-15 fiscal year. That might sound like a lot of money, but it’s actually just a small portion of the total amount spent on transportation in the region. For comparison, the annual amount of public funding that is spent on transportation infrastructure and maintenance in the Portland metropolitan region is about $630 million. Most of those funds go to for roads, bridges, freight, and transit; only 2% goes to bicycle facilities, trails, and sidewalks.

Regional Flexible Funds are one of the primary sources of funding for bicycle, pedestrian and trail projects. According to Metro’s Active Transportation Council, 21% of all funding for these types of projects in the region comes from Regional Flexible Funds.

Freight initiatives and active transportation projects are currently competing for the funds, and the outcome is vital to our region’s future. In the last two funding cycles, active transportation and complete streets projects have received an average of $19.9 million, reflecting the awareness that trails, sidewalks, and bike facilities have very few sources of funding relative to the huge allocations for roads, and that the small amounts available can make a big impact for biking and walking.

However, this time around, JPACT is considering shifting significant funding to freight. Freight projects are important, particularly multi-modal projects including rail projects and those that improve system operation. But freight projects receive funding from a wide array of federal, state and local sources.

At the current level of funding for active transportation, it will require 166 years to build out all of the trail, bicycle and pedestrian projects in Metro’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. The majority of these projects derive support from Regional Flexible Funds.

So Floyd Landis finally comes clean about cheating, but he can’t do it like a man. Instead, he has to flail at others around him, to mitigate his owning failure by dragging down others. He attacks Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie and others, most prominently, of course, former teammate Lance Armstrong. Apparently, for Landis, if Lance cheated then it was ok that he cheated, too. Only one problem with that theory: it’s bullshit. I have no idea if Leipheimer or Hincapie were clean or not, but I have no doubt Lance has ever been anything but.

On the empirical side, Lance has been tested more often and thoroughly than a new drug at the FDA. Testing for top-flight cyclists is more stringent than for a nation under UN sanctions for weapons. The tests are frequent, unannounced, supervised and, in the case of the Tour de France, dedicated to proving Lance is dirty. This they have failed to ever do. Since Lance is not dirty, they cannot prove that negative. Hundreds of tests, and not a single instance of a positive test (rumors and lies aside).

More critically, however, is the nature of the man himself. I cannot see him going the cheater’s route for several reasons, and to my mind, these are persuasive.

First, he’s a cancer survivor. Why would he do anything that might screw with his body’s chemistry and natural function and open himself, however slightly, to the possibility of doing more harm to himself? Surviving and then recovering from cancer is a grueling experience for anyone; I saw some of what my father went through with his leukemia, and that was mild compared to what I’ve read of testicular cancer patients. Brett Butler, the baseball player and former Dodger, said he grew suicidal during his treatment for testicular cancer, it was so difficult on his body and spirit. Surviving that experience leads most people to a new lifestyle designed to enhance health. Since Lance had the huge advantages of working with Nike, top physio-training experts and other non-cheating routes to world-class athletic standing, it seems inconceivable to me that he’d risk not merely his career but his life with blood-doping and other risky measures.

Honestly: has anyone seem anything from Lance Armstrong other than a will to live and prosper? Can anyone imagine he would put his life at risk? Some may argue that blood-doping would bring no risk of cancer, but for a cancer survivor, could that ever be guaranteed enough to make it worth that risk? If you cannot prove the zero risk, than you have to assume the possibility of risk — and avoid it. Lance is not a stupid man.

But as vital to me as his natural inclination to do whatever was necessary to avoid a recurrence of cancer is the man’s personality: He may be willing to use every possible technological aid money can buy, but in the end, he has to get on a bike and ride, and I think his bad-ass Texan pride would never let him cheat. Remember that great moment in the Tour where he glanced over his shoulder at Jan Ullrich — and then rode off, leaving his rival in the dust? That’s the essence of Lance Armstrong: he’s gonna whup your ass with plain old hard work and a stronger desire to win. Add cheating to that mix, and the desire shrivels up into mere greed. Ullrich was greedy; he cheated, and he never won the Tour. There have been other top riders busted for cheating, and none have come near Armstrong’s ability to keep riding. They did not have the real desire, the deep-down-in-the-belly fire that Lance has. They were lesser people, lesser athletes, so they chose to cheat their way to the top.

Didn’t work out too well for them.

The majority in any community needs to be subjected to regular reality checks. Complacency, self-righteousness and distance from the “real world” are dangers to any majority, even an accidental and not terribly homogenous one like “white Portland”. A majority will tend to view its problems as the real problems: this is an issue any community has to keep in mind. Fortunately, Portland has no shortage of people willing to provide that reality check. Many of these do-gooders actually do have the good of others in mind. They serve as positive checks on the majority’s perceived reality.

Jack Bogdanski is no such reality check. He’s a self-righteous, negative and destructive arbiter of morality, ready to attack others without the slightest understanding of what he’s spewing via his circle-jerk of a blog. His sycophants join him in believing that snarks and personal attacks serve a purpose when, in reality, he is doing nothing more than causing further division in a city that needs pathways to unity, not vicious and ignorant attacks on those actually trying to make a positive difference.

Here is the full content of a recent blog, including title:

"Bikes are for white people"

I'm not sure whether this is sad, funny, both, or neither, but it's classic Portland: A local group is burning a lot of energy trying to figure out why Portland's largely invisible racial and ethnic minority groups don't ride bicycles.

Not why they don't have job opportunities, or health care, or good schools. Not why their young people are being killed by the police and by each other. Why they don't ride bicycles.

Who was he referring to in his usual helpful manner? Community Cycling Center; a bicycling non-profit. Here’s their mission statement:

The Community Cycling Center, founded in 1994, broadens access to bicycling and its benefits through our hands-on programs, volunteer projects, and neighborhood bike shop.

The people who fix TriMet buses on the road work in dangerous circumstances, as does anyone who services broken-down vehicles on roadways. To help reduce the possibility of these workers being hit by cars that take insufficient care, TriMet policy is to have the workers park their vehicles a couple of feet “outside” the bus’ perimeter. This provides them a safe working space when their backs are to traffic.

This is a very good, very necessary policy. And yet there is an unintended consequence as the following photo show:

Yes, the truck is in the bike lane. And it has plenty of room to get out of that lane:

The bus being serviced was parked on SW Main, between 1st and 2nd Avenues. The bike lane coming west off the Hawthorne Bridge is located between the bus lane and two lanes of cars. Not only does traffic move through this stretch at a fast speed (including bikes, which are going downhill), the bike lane road surface is badly chopped up. It’s a sketchy enough ride in the first place, as thousands of daily bike commuters know too well. But when a situation like this occurs, and bikes are forced out of the bike lane into traffic, the possibility for disaster becomes unacceptable.

Here's the flow of west-bound bikes and what they were forced to do; fortunately, this was around 5pm and, unlike the morning commute, few cars in the two "car" lanes:

This headline from today’s Oregonian is a softball, teed-up and waiting:

Portland Bike Plan goes before City Council, but can the city afford it?

With the obvious rejoinder being, Can the city not afford it?

$613 million is a lot of a money. For comparison, Oregonian writer Joseph Rose notes $575 million for the MAX Green Line and a total of $630 million for all metro-area transportation projects. Of course, the former was built largely with Federal funding and the latter is the area’s annual cost. The proposed bike money is for 20 years, not 2010. There’s no question that $30 million a year is a lot of money, but at least that’s a more honest comparison.

And asking the Cascade Policy Institute to comment productively on any activity of government, especially funding a progressive or liberal program, whether safety-net services or bicycle expansions, is like asking PETA for their favorite roast beef recipes. The CPI spokesperson’s useful contribution? “Nothing they do is going to make [bicycling more attractive than driving for all trips of three miles or less] happen for most people." This is exactly the kind of response you’d expect from someone who believes in “free” markets, as if such things existed outside of Milton Friedman’s dreams. That worldwide experience has shown the exact opposite means nothing to ideologues such as CPI and add nothing productive to any debate.

The simple facts are these:

• more and more metro-area residents are choosing to bicycle instead of drive or use TriMet
• bicycling is a major recreational activity
• bicycling is already a growth industry in the area with the potential to truly boom
• bicycling, in conjunction with the state’s amazing natural resources and food industries, has the potential to be a big tourist attraction (ie, lots of out-of-state discretionary income waiting for us)
• Portland may be the best bicycling city in the country, but that’s a damn low bar
• many of the streets designated for bicycles are barely rideable (the condition of southeast streets are so bad, I’m amazed at the lack of outcry from car drivers)

And while not a fact, per se, the idea that livability — the kind people move to this region to enjoy — can be found by sitting in a car for major portions of the day is laughable. Add to that the expense, the losses in productivity and the health costs, and a $30 million annual expenditure on bicycle transportation is easily seen as an investment — that benefits everyone.

We have a limited amount of space for all forms of transportation. Additionally, as soon as street improvements are made, they become more attractive to drivers and rapidly fill up. Drivers can be routed away from areas in this manner, but since people are driving all over the place, all new roadways do is reconfigure congestion. In order to outbuild the demand for clear roadways, something else has to go.

And the history of major roadway construction in this country shows quite clearly what does go: neighborhoods and livability. They did not remove bike paths to build the Stadium Freeway.

For my first ride down Terwilliger in over a decade, this afternoon would not have been my first choice. Dark and rainy, and me without any of that cocaine that apparently the astronauts now use. Fortunately, heading back towards town, traffic is pretty light. I was able to get out of the bike lane a lot, just use the regular traffic lane. Much less harrowing.

I rode the brake most of the way down, of course, as slippery as that felt in the rain.

This is life for a bicyclist in Portland much of the year: wet, cold, and not a little bit scary. The road is less sure, and the danger from cars is even greater. There is no amount of confidence to make up for the road being dangerous like it was this afternoon. An abundance of caution is a rider’s best friend.

I also favor the helmet mirror I got at Bike Gallery. And the helmet to which it is attached.

There have been a few times when, riding on days like this, I get home so covered in road grit, I just head right into the shower with my rain gear on. It’s the easiest way to clean off all that crap. Fortunately today, I managed to avoid getting sprayed. I did head straight to the shower, but not in my gear. That’s one of the great blessings most bicyclists in Portland share: on a day like this, when we get home cold and wet — from rain and sweat — we can get clean in nice, hot water.

Sadly, I have to go out again later. I’m almost thinking of walking; it’s only from here (SE 29th near Clinton) to Madison’s; probably a 20-minutes walk. I might even stay drier. I love living in this neighborhood because I can do that. I can hop on my bike or just walk. Bus options abound as well. If the rain reduces to a drizzle, I’ll probably ride. But if it’s still heavy, I’ll probably just enjoy the stroll through Ladd’s Addition with some music in my ears.

My next ride on Terwilliger I hope is a lot drier and sunnier. That is a whole lot more fun, a lot less nerve-wracking.

Over on Facebook is a group with the pithy name "There's a perfectly good path right next to the road you stupid cyclist!" The level of commentary is at about the level you'd expect from people able to come up with a title that brilliant. The group founders did not bother to add the usual kind of info even the most amateur groups include. The profile picture is ambiguous, apart to show this is a group in either Australia, New Zealand or the UK. There are 32,000+ fans, 3 threads and 1 photo posted by the group's founder.

And BikePortland wants Facebook to remove this group:

This group is in clear violation of those terms and should be removed by Facebook immediately. As we have made clear on several past occasions, encouraging violence on other road users is no joke. Given the already divisive bike/car culture clash in America and the relative vulnerability of people using our roads without the protection of 3,000 lbs of steel to protect them from harm, this type of thing should not be tolerated.

First, of course, the group was not founded by Americans. Second, in reading through some of the comments, the founders were not pissed about bikes on streets; they were pissed about bikes on "carriageways". That's the Brit/Oz equivalent of a state highway. (A freeway is a "motorway".) Their point, such as it is, is that it seems dumb for bikes to ride on roadways with large, high-speed vehicles. They are especially upset with bikes that legally use part of the roadway. Now, apart from questioning the sanity of anyone who would ride a bike on such roadways, this group points out a major challenge for the bike community: educating those who drive cars and do not ride bikes.

In other words, this is not an anti-bike group. This is a group of ignorant people. Shutting down hate speech is one thing; shutting down people from talking because they are stupid is another.

Yes, the group includes a few pictures such as the one BikePortland calls out; that picture is so ridiculous and over-the-top, done in a "motivator" style, as to make it clear it's satire and not advocacy. (Again, shutting down stupid and poorly done satire is not something Americans should be advocating.) Most of the "anti-bike" posts are further demonstrations of how ignorant many, perhaps most, drivers are of the conditions those of us who bicycle face. This should not lead to calls for censorship but for education.

And guess what? The bicycling community around the world is responding. Not by joining the group demanding Facebook practice censorship but by joining this group and taking over. The photo album is now predominantly pro-bike, from artistic pictures to bikes in motion and more. There are a few ugly picture (some obese guy in spandex) but about 90% of the photos look like they come from a bicycling advocacy group. The single forum thread is dominated by arguments for and explanations of bicycling. There's a lengthy and reasonable explanation of the errors cars make in their impatience to overtake bicycles using roadways properly. There are clarifications of the law and of the rights of bicyclists. The groups appears to be less of an anti-bike group than a lame debate between those who drive cars (too fast, it seems) and those who ride bikes (by necessity, I'm guessing, on less-than-optimal roads).

Censorship must always be a weapon of last resort. Censorship is a tool we use to stop true hate speech, calls to violence, organized activism towards the harm of others. This Facebook group fails on all accounts to rise to that level. It's lame, it fails to make a coherent point about the problems of drivers and bicyclists, and it's provided an opportunity for the international bike community to rally and overwhelm the founders of the group with their own perspective.

The reaction of BikePortland and others in calling for this group to be removed is extreme and wrong-headed. Censorship will not resolve anything. Engaging the "enemy" will. And if you don't feel like that, you can ignore the group and leave it to those who will engage them on their turf — and hundreds of people are doing just that.

If the bicycling community wants to be given their due on the road, including the expenditure of millions, if not billions, of dollars, then bicycle riders need to be serious about their vehicles. They aren't toys. If they want to ride around with no regard for rules, safety or other people, they need to go to the playground and ride in circles with the 3- and 4-year olds. Who, of course, are now required by law to wear helmets.

Insisting that helmets be optional is saying that you do not take your bicycling seriously, that you are simply playing around. That's fine for your driveway or backyard, but not for public streets. The bicycling community has to grow up, and taking personal responsibility for safety is crucial. That means helmets are mandatory.

Even if they are less fun and mess up your hair.