Portland has 10 times more people cycling to work than the average US city

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

If one gets behind a biker and they wont share the road, is it illegal for one to throw his/her car in neutral and rev the engine?

Do you also do that when you drive behind slower motorists? Sounds a bit rude.

[VTHokieFan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Do you also do that when you drive behind slower motorists? Sounds a bit rude.

When I'm behind someone in the passing lane and they're going under the speed limit, I flash my brights. People should be apprised of when they're breaking the law. Also, I never said I revved my engine behind a biker.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

When I'm behind someone in the passing lane and they're going under the speed limit, I flash my brights. People should be apprised of when they're breaking the law. Also, I never said I revved my engine behind a biker.

Oh funny, when driving I like to slow down when people flash their lights at me. Good to know you do that. But what does this have to do with cycling?

[Steve Pickering]

I am just glad you two are on opposite coasts.

For the OP, Portland is a bicycle town, but not always so bicycle friendly.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Steve Pickering

I am just glad you two are on opposite coasts.

For the OP, Portland is a bicycle town, but not always so bicycle friendly.

Not for long, I will be back in Portland by the end of August.

[pdxMIKEpdx]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

If one gets behind a biker and they wont share the road, is it illegal for one to throw his/her car in neutral and rev the engine?

Maybe a small air compressor in the trunk and some JC Whitney train horns under the hood?

http://www.jcwhitney.com/kleinn-horn...FZJr7AodiksAvw

Nobody would expect that, especially coming from a small car.

[PDXJ]

I agree that there are some poor bicyclists (just like auto drivers) out there, but I think the point that bicycles don't pay their fair share is not as clear cut as some make it seem. Bicyclists do pay taxes just because they are citizens like every one else, but it's fair at least to say that bicycling is subsidized in Portland, since there aren't direct user fees on bicyclists for the 1% (or whatever) of transportation funding that goes for bike lanes, etc. But there are some very good reasons for this:

(1) Bicycling actual alleviates car traffic on the main arterials. Just like with public transit, a person bicycling is one less person on the freeway, Sandy Blvd., Powell Blvd., or wherever people are commuting. Bicycling routes are designed to funnel bicyclists onto slower side streets where traffic is not supposed to be going fast in the first place, so it's a pretty well designed system.

(2) Bicycling reduces the need for parking spots. This is already a big issue in Portland, and is only growing tighter. You can probably fit 8 bicycles into the parking space that one car takes.

(3) Bicycling improves air quality - one less car on the road means less emissions, and healthier air for everyone.

And you also can go on to more esoteric issues - lower health care costs, reduced dependence on fossil fuels, etc.

Taxing and imposing licensing requirements on bicycles would probably reduce the number of bicyclists on the road to some extent, and thus put more cars (and traffic, parking competition, and pollution) out there.

[delta07]

And, as these kind of threads often go, all the good information can be found in the first few pages. The continual back and forth bickering has made keeping this thread open useless. It is now closed.