Advocacy & Safety - Is the cyclist right? - Portland, OR situation of interest

Bus rider confronts cyclist (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1137470115289160.xml&coll=7)

This incident happened a year or so ago and is causing a bit of a stir here because it was caught on video (there is a video of the incident on the webpage) and a lawsuit was filed; not to mention that it is just that time of year where papers pick up the "cycling" angle of our city. What do you think of this situation?

Currently, the cyclist is suing Trimet (bus authority) for $50,000. Unfortunately, the driver appears to have passed away during the last year and the passenger has not been identified.

Since this is of public record, go ahead and rip on or side with the cyclist and/or the collective of the bus. If you cite theory though, back it up with specific situations you have encountered yourself. If you cite your actions simply "on principle," prepare to defend how your principle deals with the specific situation.

I, personally, have not ridden here before, so I have no first hand knowledge of the on-road conditions. Chances are, though, that there are people on this forum who have riden here before. Please defer to their descriptions to keep this thread from degenerating. I might bring myself to hauling my a$$ out of bed and visiting this spot tomorrow. I'm thinking of a bike ride tomorrow anyway.

HH, if you post here, we all know your "on principle" stand. I respectfully ask for personal situations to support your "on principle" ideas and extensions of those ideas. No need to start at square zero.

Moderator, lock this thread after it reaches 100 posts. Thanks in advance.

Everyone else, don't waste posts by "calling spades, spades." We all know what a spade looks like, no need to point it out. We have 100 posts max, so enough with the calling and countercalling.

Man, I hate bus drivers that fail to pass with enough clearance!

I think there's a % in every fleet - drivers that hate bicyclists.

I saw the video this morning on the local news. Haven't watched it again because I'm using an 8k modem...

The bicyclist had a clearance flag by the rear axle, I wonder if it got engaged by the bus?

I know when I'm riding a busy road with a narrow outside lane, with heavy traffic approaching from behind, and there's a bicycle accomodation to my right, I'll try to take it, even when its filled with gravel- i feel the gravel is less of an inconvienence than a 30 ton bus dogging my left side.

I also take a shoulder when double dump trucks are approching me from behind at highway speeds too, instead of lane grabbing, so, in my experience in these types of situations, it's easier for the biker to yield to their right -

Personally, I've also blocked buses and ripped the drivers a new one when they've passed me too close, but I wasn't ignoring a bike lane at the time.

I don't see what the bike lane has to do with anything. Assault is assault, even if the victim is acting like a hothead. The only legal issue I see is whether Trimet has legal liability for the actions of its passengers.

I know when I'm riding a busy road with NOL, and there is heavy traffic approaching from behind, and there's a bicycle accomodation to my right, I'll try to take it, even when its filled with gravel-
Interestng how we interpret road descriptions. In all my past description of NOLs I used the term to refer to pavement width (to the right of the lane divider) that is physically narrow and a not striped width - meaning there is never an option to move right, good surface or not. So when I refer to riding in center of a NOL and not moving right to let vehicles pass, that has always meant to me that there is not even an option to move right.

But I do understand that a NOL could mean that there is a 'difficult to ride' (i.e. debris/narrow width) shoulder to the right of the NOL. But never once do I think of a NOL as having a BL to its right. To me that would be a WOL with a BL stripe added. Of course a BL with debris then creates a NOL. My head is spinning.

ps- if this thread approaches 100 I will delete this post to give back some space for the discussion of the specific issue.

Al

The question of the thread is 'Is the cyclist right?" From what I read, yes (2nd edit: on watching video the cyclist got in front of bus and stood still and truely blocked bus, questionable - I would have taken bus number and reported instead, always difficult to assess taking action into ones own hands when emotions are high ...?).

What do you think of this situation?

That folks (drivers of all types of vehicles) on the road need to calm down and go out of their way to be courteous. There is a real pleasure in being nice to others sharing the road that enables one to arrive at ones destination feeling peaceful.

The BL looks clear well before the bus passes, but at the point the bus is passing it does look like half the BL is filled with water/ice/debris. So I can see why the cyclist was where they were.
Does OR have a passing clearance law?

Al

It is clear from watching the video that the cyclist stopped in front of the bus to get the bus driver's attention. This is what prompted the passenger getting out to "deal" with the situation. It is undoubtable that the bus driver was cupable in the assault, as he let the man off and then did not close the doors, but let him back on - all without calling the incident in. It is being discussed now because the video makes for a good case study.

I tend to agree with Bekologist when he says that he would take to the bike lane. But it kind of depends on how fast I am going, the conditions of the bike lane, and how much traffic there is. There is a section of my commute which has a shoulder (not a bike lane - barely over a foot wide), 55-65 mph traffic on a single lane rural highway and I am going up hill. In this case, I take surrender the lane and dodge piles of gravel and debris. I feel safe doing so because I know that the road ahead levels out and the shoulder remains present for long enough for me to get back up to speed. The cyclist in the case here cites gravel in the bike lane as the reason for staying out of it.

Here, I would probably be content in the bike lane, as the gravel piles up in only a thin line right at the bike lane line. Note that, because the weather is very wet here, the famed "sweeping" motion of car tires, said to be an advantage for WOL's, might be compromised. I say that because the gravel piles are literally right at the edge of the white line. In dry weather, even with bike lanes, there is usually a 6" to 1 ft strip near the left bike lane line which is clear of all debris due to the sweeping action of cars. Since cars tend to follow paths through debris just like cyclists, it is unlikely in my mind that a WOL would help with the gravel, and hence, the passing clearance.

Finally, I should mention that buses here and in Seattle (the two bus heavy places I have lived) tend to act like they own the road. I had a bus pass me and then immediately cut in front to get to a stop. I had to stop because the end of the bus had not even passed me before he cut me off. In some ways, the bus drivers act as we cyclists sometimes do, but with multi-ton buses.

Of all road users, commercial drivers, especially bus drivers, have a special responsibility to use caution. Any driver who threatens another is guilty of a misdemeanor, but a bus driver assisting a passenger to assault a cyclist should have resulted in his immediate suspension, possibly dismissal. In addition, you don't need drivers like that behind the wheel of a large vehicle who will purposely cut it too close to a cyclist.

It is clear from watching the video that the cyclist stopped in front of the bus to get the bus driver's attention. This is what prompted the passenger getting out to "deal" with the situation. It is undoubtable that the bus driver was cupable in the assault, as he let the man off and then did not close the doors, but let him back on - all without calling the incident in. It is being discussed now because the video makes for a good case study.

I tend to agree with Bekologist when he says that he would take to the bike lane. But it kind of depends on how fast I am going, the conditions of the bike lane, and how much traffic there is. There is a section of my commute which has a shoulder (not a bike lane - barely over a foot wide), 55-65 mph traffic on a single lane rural highway and I am going up hill. In this case, I take surrender the lane and dodge piles of gravel and debris. I feel safe doing so because I know that the road ahead levels out and the shoulder remains present for long enough for me to get back up to speed. The cyclist in the case here cites gravel in the bike lane as the reason for staying out of it.

Here, I would probably be content in the bike lane, as the gravel piles up in only a thin line right at the bike lane line. Note that, because the weather is very wet here, the famed "sweeping" motion of car tires, said to be an advantage for WOL's, might be compromised. I say that because the gravel piles are literally right at the edge of the white line. In dry weather, even with bike lanes, there is usually a 6" to 1 ft strip near the left bike lane line which is clear of all debris due to the sweeping action of cars. Since cars tend to follow paths through debris just like cyclists, it is unlikely in my mind that a WOL would help with the gravel, and hence, the passing clearance.

Finally, I should mention that buses here and in Seattle (the two bus heavy places I have lived) tend to act like they own the road. I had a bus pass me and then immediately cut in front to get to a stop. I had to stop because the end of the bus had not even passed me before he cut me off. In some ways, the bus drivers act as we cyclists sometimes do, but with multi-ton buses.

Even if you agreed with all of that, does that justify assault? No.

Here's my (non-lawyer's) take, after re-reading the article. The assailant is guilty of assault. The bus driver is an accessory to that assault, both for enabling it and not reporting it. The bus driver is also guilty of careless passing. The bus driver's employer is financially responsible for the actions of its employee in the course of conducting his duties. The cyclist could have acted to prevent both illegal acts -- taking the lane could have prevented the careless passing, and not confronting the driver could have prevented the assault -- but he broke no laws, and has no contributory negligence.

Of all road users, commercial drivers, especially bus drivers, have a special responsibility to use caution. Any driver who threatens another is guilty of a misdemeanor, but a bus driver assisting a passenger to assault a cyclist should have resulted in his immediate suspension, possibly dismissal. In addition, you don't need drivers like that behind the wheel of a large vehicle who will purposely cut it too close to a cyclist.

I agree with you, but there is no denying that there are strong feelings about this. A vast majority of readers who wrote into the Oregonian about this article were in favor of the bus driver and the passenger. They express some extreme frustration with the way that some cyclists selectively break traffic laws and they take it out on this one cyclist. Even my mom is that way!

That there was a bike lane on this road that the cyclist chose not to use is, no doubt, part of the frustration as well. But even if the bike lane strip were removed, it would be the fact that there was space to the right of the cyclist which would draw the many comments. If there were no bike lane and no WOL, there would be no question that the cyclist was doing the right thing in terms of lane positioning, yet I get the feeling that these same people would push for us to use the sidewalk (which, BTW, is illegal here).

This convinces me that there should be three objectives of Portland advocacy, besides getting bad laws changed and getting us more favorable laws. The first is to get more and better trained/informed cyclists out on the street. The second is to lobby for better signage and better drivers' ed with respect to cyclists' rights and responsibilities. The third is to gain the trust of frustrated moterists and advocate for better enforcement against law breaking cyclists.

I can give a couple of analyses here, one from a cyclist's perspective and one from a lawyer's.

As a cyclist, I largely agree with bekologist. I think in a situation like that one, gravel is probably an easier thing to handle than a bus. While I haven't viewed the video, it sounds to me like the cyclist may have been being overly confrontational. I don't think there's anything wrong with getting a driver's attention out on the road and letting them know they did something wrong or dangerous, but it sounds to me like he was intentionally obstructing the bus to make a point. Frankly, he had better avenues (and likely more effective ones) to pursue. This is a bus. Take down the number, the license plate, and the time of day, and call the transit authority. Register a formal complaint and see if you can get this assh*le reprimanded. It would have much more effect than trying to make a point by self-help.

From a lawyer's perspective, I think the transit authority is responsible for the actions of its driver and I can just about guarantee you he made an unauthorized stop by allowing a passenger off and back on at something other than a marked stopping point. But for the driver's action, the cyclist would not have been assaulted, and this should result in civil liability. As for the passenger, he should have both civil and criminal liability. What he did is just plain unconscionable. Finally, with regard to the lawsuit filed by the cyclist, it looks quite reasonable until you reach the $48,000 in non-pecuniary damages portion. That, frankly, is just a bit over the top. It's one thing to say you've incurred medical bills. Quite another to suggest that you've been emotionally scarred by the whole thing.

Of all road users, commercial drivers, especially bus drivers, have a special responsibility to use caution. Any driver who threatens another is guilty of a misdemeanor, but a bus driver assisting a passenger to assault a cyclist should have resulted in his immediate suspension, possibly dismissal. In addition, you don't need drivers like that behind the wheel of a large vehicle who will purposely cut it too close to a cyclist.

Right on! It's getting to be well known here in Portland that there is a definite widespread animosity towards cyclists from Trimet drivers. That's not to say they are all out to get us, but there's been several accounts of bus drivers acting hostilely towards cyclists on the roads. It's very unfortunate that the general auto population here is for the most part considerate and aware of cyclists, but the bus drivers continue to be so aggressive. As for whether the cyclist in this incident did the right thing or not, I don't think it's too out of line to make a firm point when someone almost kills you. It was certainly wrong for the driver to let a passenger out to assault him, let the passenger back on, and drive away.

Where is the link to the video?

If the cyclist feels it was unsafe to ride in the bike lane, that should be taken on face value. No fault there.

If the bus driver passed with too little clearance, the cyclist's ability to touch the bus as it passed would certainly show this to be true, then the bus driver is at fault for unsafe passing.

Riding up onto the sidewalk in "ped mode" is okay, to ride up to the bus door to try to get the bus driver's attention, unless sidewalk cycling is illegal there.

Now, walking into the middle of the street and putting the bike ahead of the bus? I haven't seen the video, but if doing this included stopping ahead of the stop line, or in the crosswalk, then the cyclist is at fault for that. If he was just using up space that the bus had in front of it, that's not great, but it's okay. In either case, of course none of that comes close to justifying assault.

The bus driver's behavior, perhaps opening the door for the passenger, but certainly allowing him back on without calling the police, constitutes some kind of guilt for something, I'm sure. As an agent of the bus company, that makes them liable. Hopefully they'll lose a lot of money and bus drivers everywhere will be lectured about not harrassing cyclists.

If I violated something requested in the OP here, sorry. I don't see how citing any personal experience would be relevant. These are just my opinions, and they seem pretty self-explanatory to me.

The video was shown on CNN (or maybe it was FOX cable news). The coverage was relatively fair.

Of course they didn't state that the cyclist does have the right to use the roadway, if the bike lane is not safe to ride in, (or other exemptions to the stay right rule).

Link to vid is on the upper right hand corner of the article in the "Related" box.

I learned after posting that the seeing the video is very important.

Maybe the cyclist just wanted to put his bike on the bus rack (joke)

One thing I've recently learned is that emotions can really (and naturally) affect ones reaction to an incident. When I was brushed by a car I had a very strong reaction to the driver. When I looking at the video one wonders why I was so aggressive as they don't fully see and feel the event. But experiencing the event as a cyclist the reaction felt restrained. I also think that if one is an advocate or has strong feeling that they often dwell on about how cyclist are treated it can perhaps escalate a situation in ways that may not be the most responsible or reflect well, even if the event that triggered the reaction was very wrong and deserved a strong response. Its a fine line.

Al

Where is the link to the video?

.....
Riding up onto the sidewalk in "ped mode" is okay, to ride up to the bus door to try to get the bus driver's attention, unless sidewalk cycling is illegal there......

The part of the bridge roadway where the cyclist rides on the sidewalk is a steel grating (drawbridge). Bicycles normally use the sidewalk there.

Dogbait

One thing I've recently learned is that emotions can really (and naturally) affect ones reaction to an incident. When I was brushed by a car I had a very strong reaction to the driver. When I looking at the video one wonders why I was so aggressive as they don't fully see and feel the event. But experiencing the event as a cyclist the reaction felt restrained. Al
Agreed. Most of us know what it's like to be passed too closely. It's scary, and it is easy to get angry.

I've been run off the road by a truck, cut off by buses and cabs - one (cab) almost left hooked me and I stomped up a hill trying to catch it. It was stopped for a light at the top, and I nearly started pounding on the driver's window. Who knows what that would have gotten me though.

It's easy to see why the cyclist felt threatened. But it appeared as though the bus driver and the passenger felt inconvenienced by the cyclist. So the passenger decided to shove the cyclist out of the way.

It's easy to get feel threatened and get angry. I applaud the cyclist for trying to take a stand then and there. I hope the he wins his lawsuit.

This case does show why the law needs to clearly state that using the bike lane is optional for cyclists. It sounds like many Portlanders have the attitude, "We built you these lanes, now get out of our way." A change in the bike lane law would be a nice first start.

Here, I fault the cyclist for chosing to ride in the wrong part of the traffic lane. If he thought the bike lane was not usuable, he should probably have been in the middle of the right traffic lane. It would have discouraged (but maybe not prevented) the driver from passing so closely.

[potential thread-jack comment deleted by author]

And of course, the driver was at fault for passing to close and for opening the door. The thug was also at fault. It's weird that no one has ID'd him from the video or that he wasn't stupid enough to have bragged about it at work.

EDIT: Someone in the commuting forum added a link to letters to the editor (http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/publiceditor/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_publiceditor/archives/2006_01.html) of the paper's blog. Pretty much everybody agrees that cyclists don't belong in traffic, especially when bike lanes have been provided. Brian, is this representative of non-cycling Portlanders?

SECOND EDIT: According to this article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/17/national/main563855.shtml), the statute of limitations is about to expire. I've heard of prosecutors indicting a DNA fingerprint to stay within the statute of limitations, why can't they indict a picture?

Prior to commenting, people should look at the video link the OP listed. (Hannity & Colmes on Fox did run a cut of the video on the Thursday night show, but did not show the bus recklessly passing the cyclist). AP has a video that includes an interview with the cyclist -

AP video (http://www.rootv.com/?channel=Offbeat+News&clipid=69065&bitrate=56&format=wmp)


The bike lane looks to be only 3 feet wide and probably did have debris. As others stated, that is the cyclist call. The cyclist was staying very slightly left of the white lane strip. Several other vehicles were able to move into the adjoining lane and pass the cyclist safely; the bus could have done the same but choose to pass the cyclist extremely closely (improper passing and reckless endangering). It appears the cyclist actually slapped the bus, maybe in anger or maybe to let the driver know he was there as the driver was moving right forcing the cyclist out of his lane position. The cyclist caught up to the bus on the bridge while the bus was stopped in a traffic back up. The cyclist stood by the door of the bus, appearing to try and get the driver to engage in a discussion. The article indicates the cyclist stated the driver refused to look at (acknowledge) the cyclist. The cyclist walks his bike in front of the bus to force the driver to acknowledge him and maybe to engage in conversation about the incident. A passenger pushes his way to the front of the bus, talks to the driver and the driver opens the door (not at a bus stop which is most likely against all bus regulations). During the assault, the cyclist does not appear to punch back at the passenger. The driver leaves the door open the entire time the assault occurs. The passenger gets back on the bus. The bus driver and passenger then flee the scene of the assault.

This type of behavior only happens if the bus company allows it to happen. $50,000 is not enough for them to pay.

Experience - I had several incidents of the public bus in Honolulu (on a particular bus route) passing me recklessly. This was out of character for the public bus. The cause - demands by supervisors for the drivers on that route to try and maintain a schedule that was impossible for them to keep. So schedule then became more important to the driver than safety. I reported 4 incidents of reckless passing through the bus web page. A customer service rep called back but took no real action and refused to give me the phone # of the safety manager, and demands for the safety manager to call me were ignored. During this time another bus force me out of the traffic lane and onto a shoulder full of broken beer bottles - got a flat - sent an e-mail to the bus telling them I would submit a claim for the tire and lost work time. Part of my job includes being the companies safety manager, so I have a few contacts which allowed me to get the direct phone # for the bus safety manager. Boy was she surprised when I called her direct line. She was unhappy that I seemed to know more about the bus safety record than she knew - not a good sign. With each point I tried to make, she responded with the mantra “We train our drivers to be aware of bicyclist”. Since the conversation was going nowhere, I finished with a warning to her that sooner or later, a driver on that route would seriously hurt or kill a motorist, cyclist and/or pedestrian if she did not take action to fix the problem immediately. THE NEXT DAY, A BUS ON THAT ROUTE RAN OVER A PEDESTRIAN.

The following day, I sent another e-mail demanding the bus manager pass on my name, e-mail and phone # to the pedestrians lawyers during the discovery phase of her lawsuit. Within a week, a VP of the bus management called me and wanted to meet to discuss safety issues.

The public busses give me lots of room when they pass know. (Still working on the private tourist buses though).

I don't think there was any 'right' in this incident. Everybody was wrong: The driver for passing too closely and then letting the passenger off and back on and not reporting the incident, the passenger for assaulting the cyclist, and the cyclist for escalating the incident by planting himself in front of the bus. I wasn't thrilled with the passengers giggling about both the buzzing and the assault either, typical sheep.


I agree with you, but there is no denying that there are strong feelings about this. A vast majority of readers who wrote into the Oregonian about this article were in favor of the bus driver and the passenger. They express some extreme frustration with the way that some cyclists selectively break traffic laws and they take it out on this one cyclist. Even my mom is that way!

What Brian says here may be more worthy of debate (for another thread of course) than the actual incident, IMO. If cyclists ever want to change these negative perceptions, it has to start with courtesy, good manners, and setting an example of respect for both the laws and other users of the roadways. Sadly, perception counts more than truth in our society, so we have to accept this reality and deal with the perceptions.

"The bus driver has since died in a boating accident"

I wonder if he was driving the boat?

What Brian says here may be more worthy of debate (for another thread of course) than the actual incident, IMO. If cyclists ever want to change these negative perceptions, it has to start with courtesy, good manners, and setting an example of respect for both the laws and other users of the roadways. Sadly, perception counts more than truth in our society, so we have to accept this reality and deal with the perceptions.

I'll give you permission for debate. After all, the whole reason this incident is in the paper nearly two years after it occured is to stimulate debate on the very topic of perception of rights and laws and the effects it has on cyclist-driver interactions. This makes a great case study because the whole thing is caught on tape and is so illustrative of the anecdotal stories we tell so often here on the forums. The lack of need to debate the facts of the situation should bring about some higher quality discussions.

Three belligerent jerks butting heads. Move along people.

Someone in the commuting forum added a link to letters to the editor of the paper's blog. Pretty much everybody agrees that cyclists don't belong in traffic, especially when bike lanes have been provided. Brian, is this representative of non-cycling Portlanders?
It's probably representative of cycling Portlanders!

The "we're special" and "we should be treated specially" sanctimonious attitude exhibited by many cyclists is breeding more and more resentment. Big surprise.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bike lanes reinforce the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of motorists, and that's the last notion cycling advocates should be looking to reinforce. To the contrary, we should be putting our efforts and resources towards quashing such a notion, and instead emphasizing that we are equal users with the same rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers. But you're all tired of the same ol' song, so I'll stop.

It's probably representative of cycling Portlanders!

The "we're special" and "we should be treated specially" sanctimonious attitude exhibited by many cyclists is breeding more and more resentment. Big surprise.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bike lanes reinforce the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of motorists, and that's the last notion cycling advocates should be looking to reinforce. To the contrary, we should be putting our efforts and resources towards quashing such a notion, and instead emphasizing that we are equal users with the same rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers. But you're all tired of the same ol' song, so I'll stop.


But until we are actually EQUAL users... able to travel at 45MPH up hills and the like, not having bike lanes will only tend to slow and enrage motorists who will then point to sidewalks...

So sing the song, but sing all the words.

But you're all tired of the same ol' song, so I'll stop.
So why did you post it?

It's probably representative of cycling Portlanders!

The "we're special" and "we should be treated specially" sanctimonious attitude exhibited by many cyclists is breeding more and more resentment. Big surprise.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bike lanes reinforce the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of motorists, and that's the last notion cycling advocates should be looking to reinforce. To the contrary, we should be putting our efforts and resources towards quashing such a notion, and instead emphasizing that we are equal users with the same rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers. But you're all tired of the same ol' song, so I'll stop.

There is no need for the "probably," you could read the letters. Most are actually from the driving public, though there are a significant number from the cycling public as well. Remember though, that letters in forums, blogs, and the editorial page are not necessarily representative of the entire public. The volume and subject of these posts simply point out that this subject is one which raises emotions on both sides.

Like I said in the OP, you can sing your song, but bring something new to the table. What personal experiences have you had where bike lanes were reinforcing the notion of a obligation to stay out of the way, and why do you think this behavior was caused by bike lanes specifically? You have spoken very little about your 30+ years of experience, surely in that time and in your cycling in other states and countries you have some tales to tell which allowed Forester's (and other's) words to ring so true. I want a discussion on these topics, but one grounded in personal experiences and not on theory and semantics.

There is no need for the "probably," you could read the letters. Most are actually from the driving public, though there are a significant number from the cycling public as well. Remember though, that letters in forums, blogs, and the editorial page are not necessarily representative of the entire public. The volume and subject of these posts simply point out that this subject is one which raises emotions on both sides.

Like I said in the OP, you can sing your song, but bring something new to the table. What personal experiences have you had where bike lanes were reinforcing the notion of a obligation to stay out of the way, and why do you think this behavior was caused by bike lanes specifically? You have spoken very little about your 30+ years of experience, surely in that time and in your cycling in other states and countries you have some tales to tell which allowed Forester's (and other's) words to ring so true. I want a discussion on these topics, but one grounded in personal experiences and not on theory and semantics.


Actually unfortunately I can testify that the reactions of some motorists are quite along the line that HH mentions... and I do support BL for fast busy roads. I do not support BL for roads under 35MPH.

I have heard motorists yelling at me to "get in the BL" when said BL did not even exist... it was only the fog line along a particular road that in a short distance turned into several right turn lanes. The motorist did not care, they saw a wide striped area and determined that I should be "over there" vice in "their" lane... never mind that there were two lanes and the traffic at the moment was quite light and I was not impeding their progress.

But along the same line, on a different road, at a different time... no BL involved, I have been "commanded" to "get on the sidewalk."

So my personal experience is that some motorists just want cyclists out of the way... period... they don't care... anything that makes them take their foot of the gas pedal is just too much for some folks. And this too can be illustrated... try driving down a multilaned road a just a few MPH below the speed LIMIT and watch the reactions of motorists behind you... Yup, the same rage and frustration... in spite of a lane or two to which they could move...

These folks will not be satisfied until they do own the road... period. There is no solution for them... That I know of.

Gene hit it on the head...perhaps without knowing it. Bike lanes are not the problem, because if there was no bike lane drivers would still think we need to be on the sidewalk or on the shoulder. This proves that there is greater benefit towards educating the public concerning the right of bicycles to use the roadways, than could be accomplished by opposing bike lanes - which after all are genies already out of the bottle, putting the top back on isn't going to cause them to go away.

Besides, the vast majority of cyclists want bike lanes, bike paths, MUPs and other facilities, so it's pointless and counter productive to oppose them when our efforts could be better spent gaining guarantees to our right to use the roadways as well and educating the public concerning those rights.

Impressions during the video (which I watched before reading the article or this thread): Why is he touching the bus? Is he trying to grab on for a ride? Later, is the bus going to turn right into the cyclist? Then, is the cyclist trying to catch up to the bus and put his bike on the rack? Then, is that guy helping him because he is hurt or is he beating him up? Oh, they're fighting. I've seen these hyper-angry cyclists before. That must be what happened.

The cyclist was a jerk. I didn't see the bus do anything wrong. Around here the buses must negotiate frightfully limited space. You have to step back from the curb sometimes. But these guys are masters at moving those enormous things in tiny spaces. I've come to learn that just because a bus comes close doesn't mean anything is wrong. Just hold your line.

I'm sorry to disagree with everybody but the cyclist was in the wrong. (That doesn't make what the driver and passenger did after the fact right--that was wrong, too.) He's obviously one of those militant guys who has forgotten how to have fun while cycling. He's swallowed the bitter pill of self-righteousness and now feels he must bludgeon everybody else over the head with it.

And he's got it all wrong. Rather than fight with the bus he should take his complaint to the city. If the bike lane is as bad as he said (the video was extremely pixelated but the pavement looked smooth to me), he needs to make the government understand that an unmaintained bike lane does not a bike lane make. That if they're going to provide a facility it must be provided for, otherwise it doesn't exist.

But you're all tired of the same ol' song, so I'll stop.


So why did you post it?
Because he never gets tired of singing the same ol' song.

I agree with you, but there is no denying that there are strong feelings about this. A vast majority of readers who wrote into the Oregonian about this article were in favor of the bus driver and the passenger. They express some extreme frustration with the way that some cyclists selectively break traffic laws and they take it out on this one cyclist. Even my mom is that way!



I disagree strongly with the notion that the frustration exists because some cyclists selectively break traffic laws. Surveys show that 90% of motor vehicles don't stop completely at stop signs; where is the outrage? Most people have no notion of the laws of that apply to cyclists, and believe that even being in the road is vaguely illegal, and impeding a motor vehicle certainly is. So even if every cyclist stopped for every stop sign there would still be anti-cyclist sentiment. It's just bigotry, pure and simple.

I disagree strongly with the notion that the frustration exists because some cyclists selectively break traffic laws.
I agree 100% with DC Commuter's observation about cyclist law breaking behavior being a significant factor affecting motorist frustration or rage.

Two factors that IMO are far more significant are:
1. Does the cyclist's position/behavior have an affect on the specific driver's speed for ANY amount of any time or require the motorist to alter his position at all on the road. The legality of the cyclist's behavior is immaterial in this situation as far as the frustrated/irked motorist is concerned.
2. What is the color of the cyclist's skin or does he appear to be from a different social class than the motorist. Legality is also immaterial in this bad attitude situation.

I saw this story linked from Fark.com yesterday. I watched the video, and found it interesting. Even more interesting though (or sad rather) was the forum topic for link on Fark. It's full of posters who support the driver and the assailant, to put it mildly. More than one poster says they would have done the same thing, or that the assailant was their hero. There were many other typical comments about wanting to run over cyclists.

You can read the Fark thread here. (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1865084)

I understand that Portland and Oregon have cycling advocacy groups. I didn't see any quotes fromt those groups. What position have they taken on this incident?

There is THIS (http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/?p=8) from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance blog. The poster, Evan, is the executive director.

And there is THIS (http://bikeportland.org/2006/01/13/cyclist-sues-trimet/) from BikePortland.org

Dogbait

There is THIS (http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/?p=8) from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance blog. The poster, Evan, is the executive director.

And there is THIS (http://bikeportland.org/2006/01/13/cyclist-sues-trimet/) from BikePortland.org
It would have been nice to see a stronger defense of the cyclist's right to be in the traffic lane from organizations that are supposed to represent the interests of cyclists.

shbikes, what prevented the bus driver from changing lanes to pass the cyclist? With a full lane to the bus driver's left, I don't see how anyone could say the driver had "frightfully limited space." Passing with only a foot of space is dangerous, regardless of the driver's skill. A strong wind gust could easily move a cyclist that far in an instant.

I also question the driver's need to pass the cyclist. Given the ebb and flow of traffic, it's clear that the bus wasn't going much faster than the cyclist. After all, the cyclist did catch up. That means the bus driver violated another basic rule of road courtesy--don't pass unless you can stay ahead. Maybe the bus driver should have just stayed a respectable distance behind the cyclist.

My experience with busses is that you generally must take the lane in front of them on roads with passing lanes. A lane that may be big enough for a car to pass safely is rarely big enough for a bus and a bike to share safely side-by-side. And if the bus is going to have to go into the left lane to get by us, it will block that lane anyway, so it might as well go into the entire left lane and leave us with the entire right lane.

P.S. I deleted the question that Dogbait answered because my question was quoted entirely in his answer. Brian, the 100-post limit is a very good experiment.

Antibike hostility in America is something that definetly needs addressing.

More needs to be done to get drivers to understand the rights of bicyclists on the roads.

Also, bicyclists in urban environments and everywhere, need to realize give and take is necessary for effective traffic flow, and close passing is an unfortunate reality of urban bicycling.

I'd estimate 3-5% of drivers pass too closely because THEY CAN, and want to play their part with a little 'educate the bicyclist.' You see this from commercial fleet drivers as well.

I believe an antibike culture pervades the bus barns and drivers' pools in this country.

I think part of the problem is that two sets of cyclists do different things that annoy motorists, but motorists think it's the same people. Some cyclists prefer to ride like traffic--in the lane and stopping at red lights (HH's rolling stops aside). Others ride more like pedestrians--hugging the curb and treating traffic signals as advisory. Putting the two together, motorists say, "cyclists want to take the lane and break the rules."

Another problem is that motorist don't realize how often they break traffic rules. Car drivers often treat speed limits speed minimums (if that). They also frequently don't fully stop at stop signs or yield to pedestrians in cross walks.

shbikes, what prevented the bus driver from changing lanes to pass the cyclist? With a full lane to the bus driver's left, I don't see how anyone could say the driver had "frightfully limited space." Passing with only a foot of space is dangerous, regardless of the driver's skill. A strong wind gust could easily move a cyclist that far in an instant.

That's not the point. The point is the way the cyclist responded was wrong. He was a hot-head. He had a bike lane. If he'd used it he wouldn't have had the problem. And if the bike lane is unusable he should take his anger out on the city and get them to make it useable or remove it or whatever it takes to solve the situation. Taking it out on the bus driver was only taking it out on the nearest target and wasn't going to solve anything.

2. What is the color of the cyclist's skin or does he appear to be from a different social class than the motorist. Legality is also immaterial in this bad attitude situation.

All cyclists appear to be in a different social class than motorists... we are after all riding bikes, not driving cars. To a motorist, that means "different."

I think part of the problem is that two sets of cyclists do different things that annoy motorists, but motorists think it's the same people. Some cyclists prefer to ride like traffic--in the lane and stopping at red lights (HH's rolling stops aside). Others ride more like pedestrians--hugging the curb and treating traffic signals as advisory. Putting the two together, motorists say, "cyclists want to take the lane and break the rules."

Another problem is that motorist don't realize how often they break traffic rules. Car drivers often treat speed limits speed minimums (if that). They also frequently don't fully stop at stop signs or yield to pedestrians in cross walks.

The problem is that motorists that violate the law rationalize that it is OK for them at the moment... but if they see another motorist doing it, or a cyclist... well then there is hell to pay.

Look, we cyclists do the same thing... "no one is around, so I'll run this... " But if you did that and had a close call with another cyclist that you had failed to notice... then "they" would be the dickheads... right?

The problem is that many cyclists do this right in front of motorists... therefore we are all to blame.

The other factor that has not even been mentioned is that a cyclist can often stop and start again in less time than a motorist can even stop... mass, or lack of it, in this case, is what allows one to change momentum so quickly. This is not to say that a car cannot stop in less distance... but usually the cyclist is going slower and can regain that speed quicker.

Oh and another thing. Now that the video has been plastered all over the Internet and who knows where else, look at what he has done for the image of cyclists. Zealouts, whackos, all of us.

On the otherhand, now that he's got video proof of the dangerous conditions the city has created for cyclists he might have more power to change things.

What the cyclist did was probably not the way I would have dealt with this.

What the driver of the bus did just proves he's one of the drivers I would consider to be Moron Cager.

What the passenger did was inexcusable and definately opens up the bus company to being sued and I sincerely hope they lose badly, financially. I also hope the passenger is identified and winds up sharing accommodations with Big Bubba, or at least he tangles with somebody badder than him and gets severely beaten.

That's not the point. The point is the way the cyclist responded was wrong. He was a hot-head. He had a bike lane. If he'd used it he wouldn't have had the problem. And if the bike lane is unusable he should take his anger out on the city and get them to make it useable or remove it or whatever it takes to solve the situation. Taking it out on the bus driver was only taking it out on the nearest target and wasn't going to solve anything.
I agree that stopping the bus was hot headed and wrong.

But before that, with the bike lane unusable, what should the cyclist have done? Complaining to the city is not an option in a middle of a commute. I stand by my contention that he should have been in the traffic lane, farther to the left.

Also, you didn't say why you thought the bus driver could not have changed lanes and passed in the left lane. Or, better yet, why the driver should have passed at all if the bus couldn't stay ahead of the cyclist.



. . .The problem is that many cyclists do this right in front of motorists... therefore we are all to blame. . . .
Your post reminds me of what I call the two Golden Myths of Cycling:

1) No bicycle shall ever slow down a car (bus in this case);
2) No car shall ever slow down a bicycle.

All cyclists appear to be in a different social class than motorists... we are after all riding bikes, not driving cars. To a motorist, that means "different."
My point is: only cyclists that upset motorists' equilibrium are thought about at all; cyclists that are "not in their way" are irrelevant to most motorists.

In this situation, as described in the news article (I have not seen the video) it appears that the cyclist made numerous efforts to disturb the equillibrium of the bus driver, if not deliberate attempts to provoke a confrontation.


To head off a nutty rant by one of the three ignoring monkeys, who may be peeking, deliberatly taking action to be "noticed" does not have any known benefit of protecting cyclists from hyped up risks of "dangerous drifting."

what should the cyclist have done? Complaining to the city is not an option in a middle of a commute. I stand by my contention that he should have been in the traffic lane, farther to the left.

Also, you didn't say why you thought the bus driver could not have changed lanes and passed in the left lane. Or, better yet, why the driver should have passed at all if the bus couldn't stay ahead of the cyclist.

He could have a) taken another route, b) moved over so as to avoid being hit by the bus, c) taken more of the lane, d) did one of HH's slow/stop signals, e) anything else. What he chose to do didn't help much.

I don't know what the bus driver could have done. The 4-quadrant video was a little hard to make out exactly the circumstances. It kinda appeared like the cyclist was reaching for the bus, not that the bus was reaching for the cyclist. If it would have been me I would have moved over out of an instinct for self-preservation.

The thing is it's like 4 mintues of pixelated video. None of us really knows the whole story. If the guy is a BF member maybe he could tell his side of the story.

Oh, and by the way there's a bunch of stuff in my morning paper today about rolling through stops and how annoying it is the way people drive around here. Drivers do complain about other drivers just as much as we complain about them. But genec is right. It's always everybody else who is wrong and when I roll through I stop it's because I've got a good excuse.

....... what prevented the bus driver from changing lanes to pass the cyclist? With a full lane to the bus driver's left, I don't see how anyone could say the driver had "frightfully limited space." Passing with only a foot of space is dangerous, regardless of the driver's skill. A strong wind gust could easily move a cyclist that far in an instant.

I also question the driver's need to pass the cyclist. Given the ebb and flow of traffic, it's clear that the bus wasn't going much faster than the cyclist. After all, the cyclist did catch up. That means the bus driver violated another basic rule of road courtesy--don't pass unless you can stay ahead. Maybe the bus driver should have just stayed a respectable distance behind the cyclist.

On this bridge, busses and trucks are prohibited in the left lanes. In the center spans, the lanes are too narrow and have impaired overhead and side clearance. We can't really see from the video what traffic is on the left of the bus. Although there seems to be room in the left lane, it is not a practical option. If the bus moves into the left lane and cars behind it fill in the right lane, as they are certain to do, the bus is stuck out there in a lane from which it is prohibited. I say this from the experience of hundreds of crossings of that bridge in a large truck. That does not let the bus driver off the hook. The proper course of action would have been to slow down and follow behind the cyclist since there was not enough room to pass safely. This would have added very little (if any, since the bus had to stop on the bridge because of traffic anyway) time to the crossing for the bus. In any event, the cyclist has to leave the roadway and get on the sidewalk in 30 to 40 yards because of the steel grating on the lift span. Slowing to bicycle speed for this short distance is not a huge inconvienence for a bus or any other large, slow vehicle.

As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the bus driver, the passenger and the cyclist all have a share of the blame for this incident. Any one of them could have prevented the assault by backing off...... but that's not what happens when everyone wants to be the top dog.

Dogbait

This isn't a comment about fault or guilt about this incident, but if a bike commuter is riding a bike that can't handle some gravel in a bike lane, maybe it's time for the bicyclist to be looking at a different bicycle, one more well suited to urban commuting.

The bicyclist had a bike lane and he refused to ride in it. Sounds to me like he should have been ready for some close passes. Like other cyclists have commented in A&S, it doesn't matter how much room you take in the lane, some drivers will always pass you too closely, because they can. There's jerks on the road everyday.

This bicyclist was ostensibly prepared for this, he had a clearance flag protruding from his left axle. Sounds like a pretty defensive commuter accessory. But he didn't have another valuable commuting accesssory, tires burly enough to handle street debris in a bike lane.

Maybe he WAS just lane grabbing because he wanted to show the bus that "bikes have rights to drive in the lanes" too! (I've seen that somewhere on Bike Forums before, funny...)

I take the lane plenty, but I also yield the lane when possible to make traffic flow more smoothly. I'll slow down, and take to a narrow position, to let a bus pass me by, sometimes even pulling in behind a parked car and doing a trackstand, to let the bus/big truck pass me by, if I'm not riding like a jerk. I'll definetly ride a little road debris if it means the difference between a driver passing too closely or passing with adequate clearance, and i'm not moving so fast the debris becomes a major safety issue.

However, the bicyclist chose to get bent out of shape, then blocked a bus full of other commuters, because he got passed in a narrow outside lane, when there was still a usable bike lane to his right.

I think once it got that far and a commuter was assaulting him, the biker should have been ready to go for broke. He should have been packing some pepper spray, hosed down his assaulter with it, throw the asshat down in front of the bus, and continued on his way.

There is THIS (http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/?p=8) from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance blog. The poster, Evan, is the executive director.

And there is THIS (http://bikeportland.org/2006/01/13/cyclist-sues-trimet/) from BikePortland.org

Dogbait

The postings on BikePortland.org are a good read – if a little long. One detail I got from there: there is a high curb separating the bike lane from the regular traffic lane on that bridge. There are also a couple of photos.

Personal Experience: If I have the option to ride with a physical barrier between me and motorized traffic, I take it – rare exception -- if the path is in really bad shape. Gravel wouldn’t stop me – I use 700x35 kevlar-belted tires which also handle glass 99% of the time. I’m not saying that a cyclist who finds the path unsuitable doesn’t have the right to use the street -- only that I’d prefer the gravel to the busses and cars.

I agree that all three parties are at fault – but that the behavior of the passenger on the bus is the most outrageous, the bus driver second worst, and the cyclist wrong but not quite as contemptible as the other two.

This isn't a comment about fault or guilt about this incident, but if a bike commuter is riding a bike that can't handle some gravel in a bike lane, maybe it's time for the bicyclist to be looking at a different bicycle, one more well suited to urban commuting. . . .


. . . I’m not saying that a cyclist who finds the path unsuitable doesn’t have the right to use the street -- only that I’d prefer the gravel to the busses and cars. . . .
Some cyclists prefer the gravel over the cars. Some prefer the cars over the gravel. That should be the cyclists' choice. Otherwise, the striping of the bike lane takes away space from cyclists instead of adding it.

Although I prefer wider tires, but you should be allowed to ride a road bike on the road. If the city can't keep the bike lanes in good enough condition for a road bike with 700x23 tires, no one should complain that some cyclists choose to ride with traffic. I thought y'all (I'm not including you in this FastFreddy) believed in bike facilities for all cyclists.

I also find it interesting that the quotes from Evan Manvelof, BTA's executive director, about Portland busses seem to be contradicted by what everyone else (including Brian) says. ("TriMet has had an open door to hear the needs of the cycling community, and I think they are making a good faith effort to be good partners. (http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/?p=8)") Evan talks about how pro-cyclist the bus company is. Why is his opinion so different than everyone else's? Evan seems more interested in staying on the bus company's good side than helping cyclists.