Google sponsored links
early reports are still pretty sketchy, I wouldn't be surprised if the police are withholding details because they got so much flack for mishandling a similar incident earlier this month.
A bicyclist was killed after being pinned under a garbage truck Monday in North Portland.
It happened around 12:30 near the intersection of North Interstate and Greeley, according to firefighters.
The victim’s name was not released.
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_101907_news_bicyclist_killed.19726ae10.html
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I hate to read about these kind of events
Condolences to his friends and family.
Update (http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/22/kgw-cyclist-dies-after-collision-with-garbage-truck/)
Based on those conversations, here’s what seemed to have happen:
* The bicyclist and the truck were traveling south (downhill) on N. Interstate Ave.
* The truck overtook the cyclist mid-way down the hill.
* The truck signaled a turn to go right (south) on Greeley and it then collided with the bicyclist.
According to Kruger, the driver says he checked his mirrors before making the turn.
Any idea how far the truck could've gotten ahead of the cyclist from half way up the hill?
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/greeleyfatal-5.jpg
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/greeleymionske1.jpg
http://www.oregonlive.com/cgi-bin/prxy/photogalleries/nph-cache.cgi/cache=3000;/olive/images/7232/a.jpg
Any idea how far the truck could've gotten ahead of the cyclist from half way up the hill?
Not very far. It's quite easy to reach a speed of 35 mph+ on a bike on that hill. The turn the truck was making is about 135° to 150° and would require a speed of less than 10 mph to make it without tipping over. A bike going straight would not have to slow down just to hold the road. A bike going >30 would catch a truck going <10 in a hurry.
It's funny I'm always thrilled to see places I know posted on the internet, but not like that. Thanks for the pictures by the way, I have a much better idea of what happened now. It is a sad day, but I still think I'll go riding.
Not very far. It's quite easy to reach a speed of 35 mph+ on a bike on that hill. The turn the truck was making is about 135° to 150° and would require a speed of less than 10 mph to make it without tipping over. A bike going straight would not have to slow down just to hold the road. A bike going >30 would catch a truck going <10 in a hurry.
+1. Not far enough that the driver should have made assumptions about being in the clear. I believe that hill is a 4% grade. We keep pace with the big trucks and a great many of the cars going down that hill.
Allister, are big trucks in Oz required to have those large convex mirrors that eliminate blind spots?
+1. Not far enough that the driver should have made assumptions about being in the clear. I believe that hill is a 4% grade. We keep pace with the big trucks and a great many of the cars going down that hill.
That's what I was wondering. Really, whether he saw the bike in the mirror just before turning is irrelevant. Having just passed the cyclist, he should've known he was there without looking.
Allister, are big trucks in Oz required to have those large convex mirrors that eliminate blind spots?
No idea. Can't say I've ever been in a situation where I thought they'd help. I've had a few truck drivers try to left hook me, but not because they didn't see me. At best, I think they merely misjudged our relative speeds, which is possibly what happened here. In that situation, brakes are your friend.
KGW is reporting that this cyclist and the previous cyclist killed both slammed into the trucks.
This cyclist slammed into the truck when it turned across his right of way. Tracey was not even moving when the truck slammed into her.
Reprehensible ba$tard$ posing as journalists at KGW... :mad:
Shame on you, David Krough.
Does anyone know if Kruger is actually running the investigation or just the spokesperson?
What terrible news.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=North+Interstate+and+Greeley,+portland,+or&ie=UTF8&ll=45.54476,-122.677449&spn=0.001227,0.002264&t=k&z=19&iwloc=addr&om=1
Since someone is going to ask any minute now, there appears to be a bike lane on N. Interstate. Is that correct?
Is this a "fast" road? Or to be more specific, what is the speed limit?
From what I've heard, there is indeed a bike lane there, and apparently the cyclist was traveling in it.
What terrible news.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=North+Interstate+and+Greeley,+portland,+or&ie=UTF8&ll=45.54476,-122.677449&spn=0.001227,0.002264&t=k&z=19&iwloc=addr&om=1
Since someone is going to ask any minute now, there appears to be a bike lane on N. Interstate. Is that correct?
Is this a "fast" road? Or to be more specific, what is the speed limit?
There is a bike lane on N. Interstate. The speed limit is 35 mph and in my experience on a non-road bike, I tend to pace the big trucks but the cars are going faster than me. They are generally speeding. There is a lot of consistent bike traffic on that road.
Hey guys I JUST noticed you posted this here.
Pretty sad but every time I log in I go right passed this section like it's not even there :o
Much like the drivers in Portland it seems....
I saw it on the news and posted it in Road Biking and Foo to let people know about 15min ago..
There is a lot of consistent bike traffic on that road.
There were three that passed in the background when I saw it on the news.
Interstate is hazardous and narrow. MAX tracks, one narrow lane through industrial district with big trucks, skinny bike lane with double-wide drainage grates in it, even narrower railroad underpasses, etc. Speed limit is probably 25-35, depending on location. I tend to avoid it, I've been passed too close by busses and trucks, but it is a direct route for a lot of cyclists. I don't live in that part of town, either, but if I did I would hop the MAX for the uphill ride and take the lane for the downhill, or take another route altogether.
This is a street (Interstate) to avoid, if possible. Mississippi Av. gets you down the same hill just a block to the east without having to navigate this dangerous intersection.
As you can see in the google map posted in #12, Interstate curves to the right just before the intersection. Because of this curve and the hill, it is quite plausible that the driver could have checked his mirrors appropriately and not seen the bike which he passed 1500 feet before at the top of the hill (according to an eyewitness) and was closing on him at 35 mph. It would only take ~2 seconds for a bike at 35 mph to travel from the apex of the curve to the site of the collision.
The victim of today’s fatal collision in North Portland was Brett Jarolimek. Brett was an employee of the Bike Gallery.
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/jarolimekalpenrose-1-2.jpg
http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/22/victim-was-bike-gallery-employee-avid-racer/
This is a street (Interstate) to avoid, if possible. Mississippi Av. gets you down the same hill just a block to the east without having to navigate this dangerous intersection.
As you can see in the google map posted in #12, Interstate curves to the right just before the intersection. Because of this curve and the hill, it is quite plausible that the driver could have checked his mirrors appropriately and not seen the bike which he passed 1500 feet before at the top of the hill (according to an eyewitness) and was closing on him at 35 mph. It would only take ~2 seconds for a bike at 35 mph to travel from the apex of the curve to the site of the collision.
I prefer Mississippi, also. That said, there seems (to me) to be more bike traffic converging here this year than last. I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. There's going to be more and more of us travelling downhill and using this intersection. Incidentally, this is the same intersection where that cyclist from Idaho was hit by the MAX train. There is so much truck traffic to be aware of. On the other hand, I've noticed trucks taking stupid chances around bikes. I wonder where the driver of the truck thought the cyclist was going to be if he knew he had passed him. Flying above, perhaps? It goes both ways: we ought to plan for erratic moves on their part and in turn they've got to judge our closing speed better. Like it or not, we do have the right of way in bike lanes. If this is his regular route, he must know how fast we can go.
I'm still curious as to how much involvement Mark Kruger has with this crash investigation. It's so difficult for me to have confidence in someone who even tries to justify issuing tickets (that judges later throw out) to cyclists who leave a bike lane to make a legal left turn.
Ugh. Pete put it just right: horrid perfect storm convergence
Edit: Oh, God - he looks so familiar. I'm sure I've interacted with him as a customer at some point. :(
this really sucks, another memorial ride, another ride of silence.
We keep pace with the big trucks and a great many of the cars going down that hill.
Then why don't you take the lane?
(Looks at aerial picture.)
Oh. Trapped in a bike lane.
TCS
Then why don't you take the lane?
(Looks at aerial picture.)
Oh. Trapped in a bike lane.
TCS
You got it. Oregon needs a modification to the bike lane law - something to permit leaving the bike lane when traveling at the speed of traffic. In that case, the cyclist could have been in the center of the traffic lane rather than trapped on the right, and would have other options (potentially).
Alternatively, they could shed the bike lane entirely, and allow the cyclists to take the lane. Changing the law would benefit a lot more locations than just this one, however, and I don't think removing bike lanes would be politically popular in Portland.
And here we are again. :(
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/ghost_bike_for_brett-1-3.jpg
You got it. Oregon needs a modification to the bike lane law - something to permit leaving the bike lane when traveling at the speed of traffic. In that case, the cyclist could have been in the center of the traffic lane rather than trapped on the right, and would have other options (potentially).
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?
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?
Allister beat me to it.
More generally, I thought that mandatory bike-lane-use-laws usually include a specific blip about a cyclist only having to use the bike lane when traveling slower than surrounding traffic. As far as I know, all include a blip about leaving the bike lane when it is impracticable to remain in it.
EDIT: Does Portland have a mandatory bike lane law? That is, if the bike lane exists, a cyclist must use it unless it is impracticable to remain in it? That might help to explain why the cyclist remained in the lane. That is, with a little uncertainty as to the truck's direction of travel and an official impetus to remain in the bike lane, I can see why some cyclists might be hesitant to leave it.
screw the law, do what is safe. i took the lane numerous times yesterday on my way home.
screw the law, do what is safe. i took the lane numerous times yesterday on my way home.
In the short run, I concur. But it would be prudent, in my opinion, to establish a set of traffic laws that foster safe travel. For instance, suppose it is illegal for you to take the lane and you get into an accident. Liability for the accident will likely be influenced by the legal status of your maneuver.
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?
In the short run, I concur. But it would be prudent, in my opinion, to establish a set of traffic laws that foster safe travel. For instance, suppose it is illegal for you to take the lane and you get into an accident. Liability for the accident will likely be influenced by the legal status of your maneuver.
In general I agree, but it seems that there is little being done to protect cyclists. Despite new legislation in many states like 3ft passing requirements, bike lanes, and cyclists' general right to use the roads, in accident after accident and fatality after fatality, the law does not seem to have any teeth. Motorists are seemingly rarely if ever held accountable bc neither the police nor the prosecutors seem to look beyond the tragedy of someone being killed and it being an accident. If the law lacks teeth, police are unwilling to write reports, das/sas unwilling to charge ppl or push for harsh penalties, what's the point of the rider's legal status? It seems like even when the rider is doing everything correctly, there is still no redress in the law if the rider gets hurt or killed.
Do whatever is safest.
In the short run, I concur. But it would be prudent, in my opinion, to establish a set of traffic laws that foster safe travel. For instance, suppose it is illegal for you to take the lane and you get into an accident. Liability for the accident will likely be influenced by the legal status of your maneuver.
The reason leaving the bike lane was brought up was as a possible means of avoiding right turning garbage trucks. Constructing spurious 'what ifs' isn't really helpful.
Besides, at least according to our local road rules, it is never illegal to take a lane if it is necessary to do so. The only lanes the are illegal to ride on are usually marked as such. eg. motorways
The reason leaving the bike lane was brought up was as a possible means of avoiding right turning garbage trucks. Constructing spurious 'what ifs' isn't really helpful.
It is if you want to make things better.
EDIT: Although I don't see any spurious "what ifs".
In general I agree, but it seems that there is little being done to protect cyclists.
<snip>
Do whatever is safest.
Actually, I don't see where we disagree.
Do what is safest and work to change the law such that you can legally do what is safest.
Besides, at least according to our local road rules, it is never illegal to take a lane if it is necessary to do so. The only lanes the are illegal to ride on are usually marked as such. eg. motorways
Oregon is the only state, AFAIK, of the few states that have mandatory bike lane laws, whose mandatory bike lane law does NOT have a "moving at the speed of traffic" exception.
814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or
path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as
provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this
section, a person commits the offense of failure
to use a bicycle lane or path if the person
operates a bicycle on any portion of a
roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle
path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is
adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply
with this section unless the state or local
authority with jurisdiction over the roadway
finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle
lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle
use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) A person is not in violation of the offense
under this section if the person is able
to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path
for the purpose of:
(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle,
a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the
bicycle lane or path and passage cannot
safely be made in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an
intersection or into a private road or
driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous
conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn
where a right turn is authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection
where the bicycle lane or path is to the right
of a lane from which a motor vehicle must
turn right.
(4) The offense described in this section,
failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a
Class D traffic violation.
Note exception (e). Other states allow cyclists to leave a bike lane any time they are approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. In Oregon, you can only leave the lane when the bike lane is striped to the right of a right turn only lane.
Besides, at least according to our local road rules, it is never illegal to take a lane if it is necessary to do so. The only lanes the are illegal to ride on are usually marked as such. eg. motorways
My understanding is that is the case in the U.S. as well. Although there is variation across states and there have been anecdotal examples of law enforcement and judiciary interpreting the law in different ways.
Anecdotally writing, I would say that there is considerable uncertainty and sometimes erroneous beliefs regarding cycling traffic law--I have personally been involved in discussions with police officers regarding the legality of taking the lane on Wilson Blvd (minor arterial) and different lateral positions--which contributes to the observation of "strange" behavior on bicycles and the drivers around them.
Tragic and I can't understand how (1) the truck driver was able to pass the cyclist and then forget that he was there and (2) how a cyclist could be passed by a big garbage truck and not anticipate the truck possibly turning.
It's like a horrible perfect storm convergence of bad occurrences.
http://paradigmhosting.net/images/interstate.jpg
I just want to point out a few things on the image. That MV lane is not that wide, certainly no wider than 12', and possibly less than that. Check the size of the lane compared to the cars in it, then imagine a truck or bus in the MV lane; the truck or bus will fill the lane and possibly then some. A large vehicle will also cut into the bike lane on right curves. Also check the large double-wide drainage grate in the southbound bike lane near the left edge of the image. If you don't want to hit these drainage grates, there is only about 12" or less of good pavement in the bike lane to the left of the grate.
Also note that the left edge of the road is curbed to separate it from the MAX tracks. The truck had to be going pretty slow to navigate that sharp acute angled turn. It is entirely possible the truck swung left prior to make the right turn and Brett was completely cut off without an escape route on either side of the truck.
Oregon is the only state, AFAIK, of the few states that have mandatory bike lane laws, whose mandatory bike lane law does NOT have a "moving at the speed of traffic" exception.
Note exception (e). Other states allow cyclists to leave a bike lane any time they are approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. In Oregon, you can only leave the lane when the bike lane is striped to the right of a right turn only lane.
I agree there are problems with the language in the Oregon law. I'll point out two things:
1. 814.420(3)(c) allows a cyclist to leave the bike lane to avoid 'hazardous conditions'. Liberally interpreted, as determined by the cyclist, this leaves a wide range of options open. OTOH, I doubt law enforcement as represented by pro-motorist/anti-cyclist officers like Lt. Kruger, would necessarily agree with a cyclists interpretation.
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 cops are fully aware of this case, the Potter case (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm), and use it to their advantage. It has not been tested again in court, but it would seem to me that a good attorney could use one or both of these recent tragedies in Portland to overturn the earlier case law, which would allow cyclists to use - or chose not to use - bike lanes throughout the city and state. IMO, the city would also appear to have some liability here, engineers are not infallible and these bike lane designs are demonstrably deadly when used as intended.
We turn next to defendant's argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge that he failed to use a bicycle lane in violation of ORS 814.420. That statute provides:
"(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
"(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed."
ORS 814.420. Defendant does not dispute that there was evidence that he was operating his bicycle outside the bicycle lane in violation of subsection (1) of the statute. He argues instead that the state failed to prove, as subsection (2) requires, that the city determined, after a public hearing, that the bicycle lane on the Hawthorne Bridge was suitable for safe bicycle use.
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.
not puncutuated very well, but one of the more insightful posts on BikePortland regarding a possible scenario that would cause an experienced cyclist to end up under a truck's wheels.
October 23rd, 2007 11:52 #216
So What Happened? Upon learning that it was an expert cyclist, Brett, obviously as good of a rider as any of us, this becomes bothersome, and demands (and Brett deserves) our thought. Here's what I think happened (after reading Oregonian's article): "The truck and SUV pass Brett near the top of the hill". (That the SUV is there, is important.). They start going down the hill. I would guess that Brett is a little behind the SUV by about a 1/2 of the way down and probably stays about there until the Truck slows. I would guess the garbage truck is going pretty good, probably 30 mph or more. The garbage truck driver probably signals at about 2/3 down the hill, and starts putting on brakes. He has to brake fairly hard, because the turn is sharp and he is/was going fast or is coming up on the turn fast. Brett for sure sees the truck's signal light (yes, there's no way in hell he missed it, no way), and would probably would have moved over to pass on the left (as most expert cyclists do). But three factors weigh him to not (these would be what would go through my brain too). 1. The SUV is right there beside him or now slightly behind (as the SUV slows for the slowing truck), and most likely is being fairly aggressive in staying right up on the Garbage truck. So Brett can't really move over. 2. The Lane is sort of narrow there, and it would be hard to pass on the left anyway. And the truck driver probably moved left, swinging wide to made the right turn. 3. The truck driver probably hesitated in turning (i hope the detective asked this). Why? Cause he was going pretty fast or came up on the turn fast and now has to slow considerably before making the turn. He basically had to straight-line brake, THEN turn. This hesitation in turning, was misread by Brett, as it would possibly have been by any other expert cyclist, I know I may have. [ I always try to pass on the left. But there is a point, when in a bike lane, if the car starts to slow, you can't get over and its best just to get by and out of the way on the right, in the bike lane. At this point I usually spin-it-up to get by as fast as possible, minimize the delay.] Brett probably read the hesitation in turning and the truck moving left (in order to swing wide) as a sign that the driver had seen him and was waiting for him to get by. And Brett at that point in time was most certainly NOT in a blind spot. Brett probably even sped up in order to get by and out of the way quicker. Then all of a sudden, the truck driver, who has been straight line braking, now has his speed under control and just turns.
I am positive this is close to what happened.
It would be nice to know exactly what the SUV driver / passengers saw. Where exactly were the Garbage truck, Brett, the SUV and speeds and relative speeds at various points down the hill?
In the back of my mind I seem to recall a garbage trucks making that turn in the manner I describe above. But it may be that I am influencing my own memory. Memory is weird and gets less accurate the more you think on an incident... Has anyone else seen garbage trucks or other big trucks making this turn in the way I describe.
Sincerely with condolences, John Schmidt, and I have been planning to race single speed cross, would have raced with Brett. [my background only so you can weigh my comments. -21 years serious cyclist/racer/commuter, including having ridden that stretch many times.. -Ex navy intelligence officer for FA-18 squadron, assigned to aircraft carrier, secondary duty: incident investigating officer –MSME, professional engineer.] please feel free to re-post or copy. please comment or add additional thought, Brett deserves it.
Oh yeah just to add, just got into a big arguement with a coworker, who swears up and down that if he puts on a right turn signal, he has the right of way over anything he is ahead of and any cyclist passing him then on the right is doing so illegally. I guess this happens often so he is really mad at law breaking cyclists. Whoa! If this is his understanding of the law (and he is a smart well read guy who rides too, well has done cycle oregon at least), i wonder who else?
Since the issues of the mandatory bike lane are being discussed beyond this specific case...
How is the typical traffic law of not passing on the right applied (if at all) concerning bikes in bike lanes in Portland and/or elsewhere?
It would seem that police would tend to look the other way, unless it was a contributing factor in an accident in which case it may arise as an issue.
here's the statute:
Failure to yield to rider on bicycle lane; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane if the person is operating a motor vehicle and the person does not yield the right of way to a person operating a bicycle, electric assisted bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, motor assisted scooter or motorized wheelchair upon a bicycle lane.
(2) This section does not require a person operating a moped to yield the right of way to a bicycle or a motor assisted scooter if the moped is operated on a bicycle lane in the manner permitted under ORS 811.440.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §698; 1985 c.16 §336; 1991 c.417 §4; 1997 c.400 §8; 2001 c.749 §23; 2003 c.341 §7]
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/811.html
That just makes the whole thing even more mysterious for me. There are grates all the way down the hill and one even at the intersection so how could he be in a position to be overlooked by the truck at the intersection...
Maybe he was bunnyhopping them?
I agree there are problems with the language in the Oregon law. I'll point out two things:
1. 814.420(3)(c) allows a cyclist to leave the bike lane to avoid 'hazardous conditions'. Liberally interpreted, as determined by the cyclist, this leaves a wide range of options open. OTOH, I doubt law enforcement as represented by pro-motorist/anti-cyclist officers like Lt. Kruger, would necessarily agree with a cyclists interpretation.
Good point. Kinda makes the whole mandatory bike lane law moot then. Might as well just continue to say "as far right as practicable" and lose the redundancy.
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 cops are fully aware of this case, the Potter case (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm), and use it to their advantage. It has not been tested again in court, but it would seem to me that a good attorney could use one or both of these recent tragedies in Portland to overturn the earlier case law, which would allow cyclists to use - or chose not to use - bike lanes throughout the city and state. IMO, the city would also appear to have some liability here, engineers are not infallible and these bike lane designs are demonstrably deadly when used as intended.
I read that and was curious about how that came about and how it's been handled in the past. Thanks for the info.
I think that would make him stand out more than merely riding down the hill...
Possibly, but it could be that there was a little inattentional blindness on both sides (cyclist focussed on drainage grates and holding his line, trucker focussed on staying between the lines).
In the short run, I concur. But it would be prudent, in my opinion, to establish a set of traffic laws that foster safe travel. For instance, suppose it is illegal for you to take the lane and you get into an accident. Liability for the accident will likely be influenced by the legal status of your maneuver.Absolutely right.
In general I agree, but it seems that there is little being done to protect cyclists. Despite new legislation in many states like 3ft passing requirements, bike lanes, and cyclists' general right to use the roads, in accident after accident and fatality after fatality, the law does not seem to have any teeth. Motorists are seemingly rarely if ever held accountable bc neither the police nor the prosecutors seem to look beyond the tragedy of someone being killed and it being an accident. If the law lacks teeth, police are unwilling to write reports, das/sas unwilling to charge ppl or push for harsh penalties, what's the point of the rider's legal status? It seems like even when the rider is doing everything correctly, there is still no redress in the law if the rider gets hurt or killed.
Do whatever is safest.The redress is in civil court, not traffic court.
If you are riding in compliance with the law-- and I agree completely with what invisiblehand said about establishing a set of laws that foster safe travel-- and you are injured or killed, you have redress in civil court. If you are not riding in compliance with the law, and that contributes to your injury or death, you may have no redress, especially if you are more at fault than the driver. Even if your noncompliance with the law is not a contributing cause of your injuries, the insurance company will claim it is contributory, and deny your claim.
The only solution that doesn't screw the cyclist is the one proposed by invisiblehand.
Here are a few examples of craigslist hate speech, with regards to the recent deadly crashes in Portland:
"The record speaks for itself. Crunched bike riders keep piling up without drivers cited.
Must be something to the arrogance of ****ing bike riders who think they can ignore the traffic laws and ****ing common safety sense. Or are they just so completely ****ing stupid they never should have removed their training wheels and left the sidewalk?
What pisses me off is the inconvenience to drivers after a bike road kill, clean-up and police expense to taxpayers, and the stress on innocent drivers who have to live with having squished a ****ing retard. It just isn't fair."
or:
"Add another notch to your steering wheel, as another dumb **** bike rider got squished by another ****ing truck! Must be open season on bike riders for trucks - anybody know where a bicyclist hunting license can be obtained? I can borrow a truck.
This time it was a Garbage truck - how much more appropriate can that be? Just scoop-up the ****ing rider and bike, toss it into the truck, haul it to the transfer station with all the other garbage. Unfortunately, the garbage truck driver will probably have to wash out the inside of his dumpster to get ride of the bicyclist stench - more valuable time wasted."
or:
"I say say mow down any bicyclist that breaks the law and pretend it was an accident. Make sure they're dead though!"
which garnered the following response elsewhere:
I would argue that it is exactly people like this that make the argument for pushing the city to crack down on drivers who kill cyclists. The laws are there to do so --however the political will to do so is absent.
Sam Adam's silence on this issue has been deafening and truly speaks for itself. We need to get public officials into office who will start by simply enforcing the laws they were sworn to uphold.
Nothing will speak to these morons more than seeing on the news that:
a) the driver was cited for failure to yield
b) the garbage trucking company paid out on a $50mil lawsuit.
We need to demand more from our public officials. And perhaps it is time to demand the resignation of Lt. Kruger based on his failure to enforce the laws he swore to uphold.
Oregonian Story (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1193109912293460.xml&coll=7)
Portland bike lawyer Bob Mionske to discuss the two recent fatalities tonight on Bicycle Radio (www.bicycleradio.com) tonight at 7 PM.
Oregon is the only state, AFAIK, of the few states that have mandatory bike lane laws, whose mandatory bike lane law does NOT have a "moving at the speed of traffic" exception.
Note exception (e). Other states allow cyclists to leave a bike lane any time they are approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. In Oregon, you can only leave the lane when the bike lane is striped to the right of a right turn only lane.
I think exception (a) more appropriately applies in this case.
not puncutuated very well, but one of the more insightful posts on BikePortland regarding a possible scenario that would cause an experienced cyclist to end up under a truck's wheels.
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:
Oh yeah just to add, just got into a big arguement with a coworker, who swears up and down that if he puts on a right turn signal, he has the right of way over anything he is ahead of and any cyclist passing him then on the right is doing so illegally. I guess this happens often so he is really mad at law breaking cyclists. Whoa! If this is his understanding of the law (and he is a smart well read guy who rides too, well has done cycle oregon at least), i wonder who else?
This, or something much like it, is actually the law here in Australia.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a
vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal.
... which I reckon is a much better idea than vehicles merging into the bike lane prior to a turn.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.