It is if you want to make things better.

EDIT: Although I don't see any spurious "what ifs".

suppose it is illegal for you to take the lane and you get into an accident.

a) as far as I know, it wasn't illegal in this case.
b) as far as I know, such lanes are exceedingly rare, mandatory bike lane laws notwithstanding.
c) even if it is illegal, given the choice between staying in the bikelane and getting squashed, and leaving it illegaly and maybe getting squashed, I'll choose the latter every time.

Sounds plausible enough. Still, a truck with it's indicators on should've been a big flag to slow down. I'm not sure I would've trusted the truck in that situation to let me through, but then again, I know that slight driver hesitation sometimes invites me to take the gap, so I can see that it could've happened that way.

edit:



This, or something much like it, is actually the law here in Australia.



... which I reckon is a much better idea than vehicles merging into the bike lane prior to a turn.

That can still allow a driver to zoom past a rider, then suddenly take a turn, making the cyclist "at fault" for the accident. I think the law here in California is better. Maybe if Oregon wants to keep their law as is, they should mandate that all motor vehicles sold or registered in Oregon have a real mirror on the right side, not a "fun house" mirror.

That can still allow a driver to zoom past a rider, then suddenly take a turn, making the cyclist "at fault" for the accident.

Yeah, well as Ron White said, you can't fix stupid.

I think the law is pretty clear about who should give way. Cyclists overtaking stopped or slow traffic on the left are not to pass turning traffic. On the other hand, motorists overtaking and then cutting across cyclists are in violation of the law, vis;

144 Keeping a safe distance when overtaking
A driver overtaking a vehicle—
(a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision
with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and
(b) must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the
vehicle is travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past
the vehicle to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the
path of the vehicle.

There's no reason not to leave the bike lane if you're travelling at the same speed as everyone else, and in fact a right turning truck is a very good reason to leave it at any speed. Don't you guys have a 'ride in the bikelane unless it is impracticable to do so' clause?

Well "the law" doesn't seem to be working to help cyclists... Isn't there a law in Oregon that any motorist is supposed to ensure the BL is clear before crossing one?
:o Rather than me get all worked up and develop a case of insomnia, please read this post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5510858&postcount=10) and apply to this discussion.

And perhaps it is time to demand the resignation of Lt. Kruger based on his failure to enforce the laws he swore to uphold.
:lol: If the fact that Mark Kruger has pepper sprayed a baby in a stroller and manhandled enough nonviolent people to cost the city at least $2,000,000 in lawsuit payouts wasn't enough to force him out, I highly doubt running his mouth when a cyclist dies and ticketing left turning cyclists behaving legally is going to have much effect. I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong, however.

:o Rather than me get all worked up and develop a case of insomnia, please read this post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5510858&postcount=10) and apply to this discussion.

Yeah, I've been following that, and I saw the thread about the guy getting a ticket for legally leaving the bike lane. I didn't see - did that ticket get dropped? It should've.

Police not enforcing the laws as they are written isn't a problem with the law itself.

the police are hos for the motorists. not surprising, most of them spend their shifts in cars

the police are hos for the motorists. not surprising, most of them spend their shifts in cars
I've heard from a reliable source that most of the police officers in the Traffic Division are terrified by the idea of riding a bike in the city.

they should be required to spend at least 100 hours on a bike before they can be on the traffic squad. Maybe then they would understand the challenges faced by cyclists in the urban environment better. btw, most of the traffic squad officers live in the 'burbs, the city has no requirement that they live within city limits.

I hear the police union would vehemently oppose any such proposal. :( That's too bad. I've also heard that in Philadelphia, they consider bike patrol duty a plum reward.

" (c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions."

Hazardous conditions: like being to the right of a right-turning vehicle?

In this case there was probably a misunderstanding, as the summary suggests: the cyclist probably read the truck behavior as waiting for the cyclist. Notwithstanding, can "hazardous conditions" include problematic positioning?

2. 814.420(2) requires safety hearings before cyclists can be required to use any bike lane. No safety hearings have ever been held, for any bike lane in Portland. However, there is an apellate court ruling - case law - that states that the fact that the bike lanes were designed by and installed under the supervision of registered engineers, constitutes a defacto safety hearing.

The state responds that the evidence that it introduced, when viewed in light of a statutory presumption, was sufficient to meet its burden of production. Alternatively, it argues that subsection (2) establishes an affirmative defense; it does not constitute an element of the state's case. We need not reach the state's alternative argument. Even if we assume that subsection (2) is an element of the state's case, we agree with the state that there was sufficient evidence to meet the state's burden of production. ORS 810.250(3) provides:

"When a traffic control device is placed in position approximately conforming to the requirements of the traffic regulations or other laws of this state, the device is presumed to have been placed by an official act or at the direction of lawful authority unless the contrary is established by competent evidence."

A bicycle lane is a traffic control device within the meaning of ORS 810.250(3), (2) and ORS 810.250(3) creates a rebuttable presumption that the bicycle lane was placed on the Hawthorne Bridge in compliance with the requirements of ORS 814.420(2). Given the evidence in this case, the trial court could find that the state had proved the basic fact (3) and that the presumed fact was sufficient to meet the state's burden of production. (4) The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of failing to use a bicycle lane.

How the heck does an engineer designing & signing off on a bike lane = a public hearing? I think this ruling could be challenged in court, the law requires a public hearing. There never was one.

a) as far as I know, it wasn't illegal in this case.
b) as far as I know, such lanes are exceedingly rare, mandatory bike lane laws notwithstanding.
c) even if it is illegal, given the choice between staying in the bikelane and getting squashed, and leaving it illegaly and maybe getting squashed, I'll choose the latter every time.

That is misunderstood and misapplied ... mind you, my original message is probably opaque.

The direct point is that it is worthwhile to have the laws changed so that safe cycling doesn't result in an incorrect assignment of liability. That was just a made-up example. This was in a greater context that well written laws help foster safe cycling since ...

a) there seem to be people that believe the legal action is typically the safe action -- I have no statistical evidence, but it is just a general observation --

b) there is a good deal of uncertainty with respect to the law -- my opinion is that a well written law is more easily understood and remembered --

c) there seems to be a good amount of misinterpretation and cases blatant disregard for the law hidden behind purposeful misinterpretation of the law -- while I am no lawyer, it makes sense to me that a well written law would reduce both --

d) on the margin, there are individuals that will incur a bit more risk or inconvenience to be in compliance with the law -- perhaps to minimize liability as in my example --

... and I can drone on ...

The statement was not in reference to whether it was illegal for Brett to take the lane prior to the accident.

I think exception (a) more appropriately applies in this case.

Exception (a) would apply if the truck arrived at the turn far enough in advance of the cyclist that he had time to change lanes and go around the truck on the left. Judging by the fact that he got right hooked, I think they both arrived at about the same time, making a lane change no longer an option. The cyclist had two options to avoid arriving at the intersection at the same time as the truck:

a. adjust speed so that the truck passed him well before the intersection leaving the cyclist time to use exception (a) should the truck turn right. (I'm assuming speeding up is not an option as it usually isn't for a cyclist)

b. adjust position on the roadway to keep the truck from passing before the intersection. This option pretty much requires riding outside of the bike lane for no good reason (according to the Oregon vehicle code at least), unless you stretch "hazardous conditions" to contain any place where the bike lane is to the right of a lane where a right turn is authorized (something a few of us here actually agree with but often are met with huge resistance when trying to present the idea).

Another very insightful post from one of the BikePortland threads:


October 24th, 2007 00:03 32A

MEETING FOR WHOM, TO DECIDE WHAT?
I am encouraged to see that Sam Adams has decided to convene an "emergency meeting" to discuss bike-auto collisions and cyclist fatalities. However, I fear that the results of this meeting(s) will leave all of us cyclists no more safer, and less satisfied with the situation.
WHO IS INVITED, WHO IS NOT?
I think that Sam has invited a very narrow list of people from those whose voices should be heard. The list is heavy on bureaucrats, and includes the BTA and members of the trucking industries. I see no mention of the professional cyclists, such as the messengers, or the recreational and sport cyclists represented by OBRA, or even the average commuter whose daily rides have elevated Portland to be considered the best cycling city in America.
DARE I SAY:
I would hope that Sam Adams would have the courage to open this up as a truly public forum. It may be risky politically, and may be an unruly event, but it would serve to give voice to the feelings of a community of cyclists as well as others, tired of enduring these senseless deaths.
WHERE'S THE PAINT?
I fear that the discussion, given those invited to attend, will center on a predictable debate over policy and the street version of property rights...based on the arguments (pro and con) that the continued striping of streets into ever more specific classifications based on vehicle type, or dimensions and configurations, will address the problem.
WHAT WOULD AMSTERDAM AND BERLIN DO?
Worse yet I can anticipate the idea being offered that separate facilities will solve the problem. I suppose if separate facilities could be established to facilitate bike movement comprehensively through the city to an extent equitable with autos,and satisfying all our needs--- a transportation equivalent of the Americans with Disabilities Act--- then cyclists would conceivably be happy with that. Unfortunately, I do not see how such a system would ever be achieved. Portland does not have the money to execute such a system, and our streets are already overburdened with auto traffic, therefore there is neither resources in terms of space or finaces to retrofit the city.
WORKING WITH THE GIVEN CONTEXT
Therefore to some greater or lesser extent, for the foreseeable future, the roads, streets and alleys of the city will need to be shared by all manner of vehicles. As such, it is behavior that needs to change.
Motorists need to learn to see cyclists, anticipate their moves, gauge their speeds and stopping distances, know their limitations, and above all, respect their place on the road.
IN A PERFECT WORLD....
The best way for this to occur is to get motorists on bikes...to have them learn what biking is. They may chose never to ride a bike again, but motorist training on bikes would give them an idea of the nature of the machine. The next best way is to get motorists to look for and wait for or work with cyclists as they share the road. All the boxes, blue paint, stripes, and other devices will never work if motorists don't respond to them, respect them, observe them and above all defer to the cyclist, whether they think they are in the right or wrong. Training, test questions, citations, fines and criminal charges are all means for enforcing the law, and modifying behavior...all may be applicable.
THE ULTIMATE TEST
Is not the one a motorist takes at the DMV...it is on the road. The motorist in (name your fatal collision) may have been in the (right?),(wrong?), or in a no fault situation... But is any of this relevant when a friend is laid to rest? Collisions between vehicles and cyclists will most likely result in cyclist injury or death...The motorist may leave the scene free of legal consequences, but does the knowing that the blinker was on ease the guilt that the gas was on as well???
IN CONCLUSION
I think that the debate about the circumstances and legalities of this and all such tragic collisions, while necessary in some degree, obscures the basic point: in any collision between two objects, the laws of physics favor mass and velocity...therefore, I believe that the operators of massive, fast moving objects have a greater obligation and responsibility in terms of behavior for the safety of all whom they encounter. Simply stated, no matter what the circumstances or legal rights, the operator of the many thousand pound vehicle did knowingly pass a slower moving 16 pound vehicle and then turn across its line of movement, risking an extremely high probability of a collision...simple common sense would dictate that the small vehicle/operator would not survive impact. This is what happened. In such an equation, there is no factor for the "speeding" of the cyclist. There is no factor for the "timing" of the blinker, or the "pausing" of the driver, before the turn was executed.
ONE LAST THOUGHT
If Sam Adams is truly committed to cycling safety, he could start by repairing the potholes, elevating the sunken manhole covers,(and requiring they not be in cyclist line of travel), replacing the remaining tire sized open gratings, redesigning the speed bumps and curb extensions, eliminating the reflectors, widening the shoulders, cleaning the streets of sand and gravel after snow storms, etc. that go with basic street design and maintenance.

From the KGW blog (http://www.beloblog.com/KGW_Blogs/talkofthetown/archives/2007/10/cyclist_killed_failure_to_yiel.html): I called up Portland police spokesman Sgt. Brian Schmautz for clarification. He said that yielding the right of way, and determining whether a traffic violation has occurred, comes down to a matter of perception. Basically, the driver has to perceive he has to yield the right of way. ("Perceive" came up a lot in our conversation.)

In this case, did the truck driver reasonably believe it was safe to turn? Schmautz said a witness to the crash saw the garbage truck pass the cyclist at the top of the hill, and turn on his right turn signal well before the turn. The truck began its turn around two blocks ahead of the bicycle. The question the investigating officers had to decide: would a reasonable person in that circumstance believe he could safely turn?

Schmautz noted that in some cases, "speed negates right of way." He brought up a rather odd analogy, noting that if one driver is making a left turn, and an oncoming driver traveling 110 mph crashes into him, the left turn driver certainly isn't at fault. So I asked how fast Jarolimek was traveling. Schmautz's answer: we don't know. So much for that analogy, then.

The investigating officers made their decision "based on the totality of circumstances" at the scene, Schmautz said. In this case, the witness statement and length of the skid mark left by the bicycle led police to decide not to issue any citations so far.

The case is now in the hands of the District Attorney's office. If prosecutors find evidence of negligence or recklessness, they could bring criminal charges, but police aren't recommending that. If the DA's office doesn't file charges, the investigating officers could still issue a traffic citation later on.

While it appears unlikely anything will happen to the truck driver in this case, the deaths of Brett Jarolimek and Tracey Sparling are leading to a broader discussion about cyclist safety and the rather confusing state of Oregon law when it comes to bike lanes.

There is nothing comfusing about the law when it comes to bike lanes, motorists are required to yield to cyclists in the bike lane. The only confusion is why the police won't enforce the law.

The police's excuse seems to be: If a driver is ignorant of the law, he doesn't percieve a need to obey it, so it is OK for him to disobey it. WTF??? When did ignorance of the law become an affirmative defense when you break the law????? And why are the police making this decision instead of the courts???

BTW, the driver in this incident has a history of 25 traffic violations over the last 20 years (http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/24/oregonian-truck-driver-has-had-25-speeding-convictions/), yet still has a commercial driver's license, WTF is up with that?

:mad:

fyi the driver who killed brett has TWENTY FIVE traffic violations in his 20 years as a licensed user of a car.

From the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1193198147198540.xml&coll=7):

"David House, a spokesman for the Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services, said even if an applicant has more serious moving violations, such as driving under the influence or reckless endangerment, the person isn't automatically blocked from obtaining such a license."

The State is enabling these dangerous drivers; therefore, the State should be held liable when they kill.

Drivers record was less than stellar.

http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/24/oregonian-truck-driver-has-had-25-speeding-convictions/#more-5667

Schmautz noted that in some cases, "speed negates right of way." He brought up a rather odd analogy, noting that if one driver is making a left turn, and an oncoming driver traveling 110 mph crashes into him, the left turn driver certainly isn't at fault.That's odd. My grandfather was making a left turn out of a parking lot onto the main street in our small town... There's a white car approaching, but it just crested the hill over two blocks away... He pulls out and the car smashes into his front bumper.

We were in an old Ford panel truck... THICK steel bumpers... ripped the side off the car! It looked like someone opened it with a can opener... you can see the engine, inside the trunk, inside the passenger compartment.

The police estimated that the white car had to have been going at least 75 mph. In a 30 mph zone. My grandfather received a ticket for 'failure to yield' :(

On a positive note... our bumper got bent back about 1/2" :D

Schmautz noted that in some cases, "speed negates right of way." He brought up a rather odd analogy, noting that if one driver is making a left turn, and an oncoming driver traveling 110 mph crashes into him, the left turn driver certainly isn't at fault

That's odd. My grandfather was making a left turn out of a parking lot onto the main street in our small town... There's a white car approaching, but it just crested the hill over two blocks away... He pulls out and the car smashes into his front bumper.

We were in an old Ford panel truck... THICK steel bumpers... ripped the side off the car! It looked like someone opened it with a can opener... you can see the engine, inside the trunk, inside the passenger compartment.

The police estimated that the white car had to have been going at least 75 mph. In a 30 mph zone. My grandfather received a ticket for 'failure to yield' :(

On a positive note... our bumper got bent back about 1/2" :D
this is the way the police obfuscate things. How fast do you think Brett could possibly have been going? 30 mph or less would be my guess.