Advocacy & Safety - The Blind Spot of Justice

Portland DA fails to prosecute yet another cyclist-killer

Blind Spot of Justice?
Prosecutors Decline to Charge Driver Who Killed Cyclist Tracey
BY AMY J. RUIZ
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=520116&category=34029

Tracey Sparling put herself in harm's way last October 11, the day she hopped on her bicycle and rolled down SW 14th toward class at Pacific Northwest College of Art—at least according to some media accounts.

The 19-year-old woman was obeying the law, riding in the bike lane, and stopping at a red light on W Burnside. In the lane to her left, Timothy Wiles piloted a cement truck carrying 40,000 pounds of concrete. When the light turned green, he turned right. "As he did so, Ms. Sparling apparently moved forward a short distance... and was run over by the right front wheel of Wiles' truck. She was then run over by one or both sets of rear wheels," according to a memo from Senior Deputy District Attorney Chuck Sparks.

Sparling died in the street that day, beneath the Crystal Ballroom's neon marquee.

The following day, hundreds of cyclists rode in a slow, nearly silent procession from the Burnside Bridge to the site of her death.

A day after that, Lt. Mark Kruger of the Portland Police Department's Traffic Division supplied excuses for the driver, to the Oregonian.

"Motorists have been conditioned for 100 years that no one is going to pass them on the right," Kruger told the Oregonian. "Spring forward to where we are today, where we've added bike lanes to the mix, and some bicycles are traveling at high speed. It can lead to significant, deadly conflicts, as we saw Thursday.

"Bicyclists expect and are trained by activists groups that when you've got the bike lane, you can do what you want to do. We have a lot of these collisions that don't end in fatalities, but they are stubborn to the point that they won't give up ground for the sake of safety."

Until last Thursday, January 10, that was effectively the end of the story in the public eye: Sparling put herself in harm's way, and suffered the consequences.

"They always blame the cyclist," says Susie Kubota, Sparling's aunt. Kubota has spoken at street safety rallies, and in support of City Commissioner Sam Adams' transportation plan, which includes funds for bike-safety improvements. "The police shouldn't make it sound like drivers don't need to do anything differently—like it's all cyclists' fault," Kubota says.

"You're legally abiding by a system the city has established, and not only do you get killed," says Jonathan Maus, of BikePortland.org, "but people insinuate that you played a role in your own death."

THE BLIND SPOT

On Thursday, January 10—nearly three months to the day of Sparling's death—Senior Deputy District Attorney Sparks issued his memo, outlining the decision not to prosecute Wiles for criminal homicide.

The news wasn't surprising. Of the six cyclists killed on Portland's streets in 2007, four died following collisions with vehicles. The driver who collided with Nick Bucher on SE Stark in February wasn't charged or cited, though he'd been drinking (but wasn't over the legal limit). Two women involved in the May hit and run on SE Foster that claimed Jerry Hinatsu's life received two months' jail time in a plea deal, but were not found guilty of felony hit-and-run charges. The driver in Sparling's case hasn't been charged or—to date—cited. And five days after the DA released the Sparling decision, he announced that Bryan Lowes, the man driving the garbage truck that crushed cyclist Brett Jarolimek last October 22, would not be charged, either.

Sparks' memo outlines why he opted not to charge the driver in Sparling's case. In short, the driver didn't perceive Sparling's presence next to his truck, so turning wasn't criminally negligent.

"[The driver, Timothy] Wiles arrived at the intersection before Ms. Sparling and came to a stop, waiting to turn right. Wiles did not see Ms. Sparling as she approached his stopped truck, nor did he see her as he went into his turn," Sparks wrote in his memo. "Ms. Sparling stopped in the bike lane near Wiles' right front wheel, and was, due to her location and diminutive stature, not visible to Wiles; she was, through no fault of her own, in the driver's blind spot....

"The relevant standard is criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is the failure to be aware of 'a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or the circumstance exists,' with the risk being 'of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.' The evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wiles acted with criminal negligence for the state to prosecute. After reviewing all witness statements, the scene evidence, and the toxicology reports I conclude that Wiles' failure to perceive Ms. Sparling prior to his turn was not sufficient to charge him with criminally negligent homicide."

While it's clear that Sparling was in Wiles' blind spot (and, according to Sparks' second memo, Jarolimek was in Lowes'), Sparks' memo does raise the question of how aware drivers must be of what could be in that space—especially when it overlaps a bike lane. Shouldn't the driver have assumed someone could be there, and waited for bike traffic—visible or not—to clear?

The DA has to make decisions "from a criminal negligence standpoint," Sparks says. "Is it provable beyond a reasonable doubt that [the driver] acted with criminal negligence? I don't think it is." And it's not his place, he points out, "to file charges to send a message" to every other driver on the road. "You can't use a human being to do that."

The blind-spot issue "leaves us at a gray, unanswered place," says Maus. "As a society, you have a situation where people can be legally operating their vehicle on a city street and one of them can kill the other or do something that causes the death, and there's absolutely no mechanism of accountability.

"If that's the conclusion we come to, that you have to know the person's there, you have to be able to perceive that someone's there, to be accountable for moving into the right of way..." Maus says. "If that's the conclusion that we're going to move forward with, what does that say about us?"

WHO'S ACCOUNTABLE?

The Sparling case is now on a police investigator's desk, and that investigator will decide whether or not to cite the driver (cops don't cite drivers on the scene of fatal collisions, following a district attorney directive).

"I don't think we really expected criminal charges, necessarily," says Sparling's aunt Kubota. But she's holding out hope that the police will now issue a citation for failing to yield to a cyclist in the bike lane.

"Even though it's a very minor infraction, I at least want to know there's something. Because there's got to be something to make drivers realize there's a consequence—no matter how minor—to them personally" when a cyclist is injured or killed.

Sparling's parents were unavailable for comment by press time; Kubota does not know if they plan to pursue legal action, but Sparling's father brought an attorney with him when he arrived at the district attorney's office on January 10 to hear the charging decision.

If the police don't issue a citation, Maus says the police need to find a creative solution for accountability.

"We need some sort of middle ground. Compromised accountability that doesn't hang someone publicly, but shows the public that a mistake was made, and it was serious," he says, suggesting a new kind of citation. "Call it something different. If you violated a law and violated someone's right of way that they were legally occupying, then that's a mistake for which you need to be legally held accountable."

Meanwhile, without criminal charges—and in the absence of a citation—the public perception remains: Sparling's death was her own fault, for hopping on a bike that day and using a bike lane in a legal manner.

And a local rebuttal


From the Merc article: "The DA has to make decisions "from a criminal negligence standpoint," Sparks says. "Is it provable beyond a reasonable doubt that [the driver] acted with criminal negligence? I don't think it is." And it's not his place, he points out, "to file charges to send a message" to every other driver on the road. "You can't use a human being to do that.""

Interesting to hear this, considering the DA's involvement and persistence a year and a half ago in pursuing Dat Nguyen and Jeff Smith to the full extent of the law for the grave crime of leaving a bicycle lane in preparation for turning left. Not to mention that "sending a message" is exactly the rationale given for ticketing cyclists at the not-so-dangerous Ladd's Circle.

I know representatives of the police force and the justice system read this list, so I try not to get carried away with accusations of bias, but I call foul here. Chuck Sparks, you are in fact sending plenty of messages, and we get them loud and clear. And so do the all the people out there who think cyclists don't belong on the road and they don't need to drive safely around us or check their blind spots. Thanks a lot.

Elly
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/shift/2008-01/msg00253.html

Story at BikePortland.org
http://bikeportland.org/2008/01/10/da-will-not-file-criminal-charges-in-sparling-case/

"A day after that, Lt. Mark Kruger of the Portland Police Department's Traffic Division supplied excuses for the driver, to the Oregonian.

"Motorists have been conditioned for 100 years that no one is going to pass them on the right," Kruger told the Oregonian. "Spring forward to where we are today, where we've added bike lanes to the mix, and some bicycles are traveling at high speed. It can lead to significant, deadly conflicts, as we saw Thursday.

"Bicyclists expect and are trained by activists groups that when you've got the bike lane, you can do what you want to do. We have a lot of these collisions that don't end in fatalities, but they are stubborn to the point that they won't give up ground for the sake of safety."


I wouldnt even know where to start. God, Allah, Xanu....whoever, help Portland !
This guy is insane !

I can only hope Tracy's family and friends get some closure at some point.

"A day after that, Lt. Mark Kruger of the Portland Police Department's Traffic Division supplied excuses for the driver, to the Oregonian.

"Motorists have been conditioned for 100 years that no one is going to pass them on the right," Kruger told the Oregonian. "Spring forward to where we are today, where we've added bike lanes to the mix, and some bicycles are traveling at high speed. It can lead to significant, deadly conflicts, as we saw Thursday.

"Bicyclists expect and are trained by activists groups that when you've got the bike lane, you can do what you want to do. We have a lot of these collisions that don't end in fatalities, but they are stubborn to the point that they won't give up ground for the sake of safety."


I wouldnt even know where to start. God, Allah, Xanu....whoever, help Portland !
This guy is insane !

I can only hope Tracy's family and friends get some closure at some point.
You can start by giving us a hint of why you disagree with anything stated in the part you quoted.

Surely you cannot argue with the assertion that "Motorists have been conditioned for 100 years that no one is going to pass them on the right," unless you're going to try to take it out of context (which is: motorist is in rightmost lane).

"Some bicyclists traveling at high speed"... certainly true. Though in this case I don't believe that was a factor. Here, the through cyclist went straight when the light turned green, while the right-turning truck driver to the cyclist's left also went at the same time.

While bike advocates might not explicitly say you can do what you want when in a bike lane, that is the implication of bike lane advocacy, whether it's realized by their proponents or not. The main reason bicyclists feel "comfortable" in bike lanes is because they believe this to be true. It is the promise of bike lanes that they are safe (and thus comfortable) when in the bike lane. This notion is only reinforced by wacky laws such as what Oregon has with respect to right turns and bike lanes.

I KNOW that I'm going to get hated for saying this, but...

To me, this was merely a sad happenstance -- a misaligning of the planets, if you will. He didn't see her, she didn't think he'd turn.

If it's a big truck, the driver usually can't even see a normal-sized car next to the front right wheel, let alone a cyclist.

Yeah, she could have moved more quickly, but then she might've been run over by the front left wheel instead.

The only way that either party could be at fault, IMO, depends on whether the truck had its turn signal on. If it were, she would have expected the truck to turn right, and -- hopefully -- she would have expected to either make herself plainly visible to the driver (that is, make eye contact); or, if she couldn't be seen, she'd expect to stay clear while the driver blindly made the corner.

If the driver didn't have his turn signal on, then she wouldn't have even guessed that he was going to turn right, and his turn would have taken her by surprise (to say the least). I would consider him negligent if he failed to signal his turn.

According to the PDF of the report, there was no conclusive evidence as to whether he had his signal on or not.

He could have checked his side mirrors more frequently; she could have drawn more attention to herself by having a front light and staying within sight (either back far enough to be seen in the mirrors or far enough in front to be seen over the hood).

What would I have done if I was in either position? Honestly, I don't rightly know. All I know for sure is that blind spots suck, both from the driver's seat and from a bike.

"You can start by giving us a hint of why you disagree with anything stated in the part you quoted."


I dont have the time or intestinal fortitude to do the A&S petty semantisizing
and hypothetical situationing stuff......

This women was doing everything 'the system' required her to do in Portland and
was killed for it. How can you not understand that ?
Are you "Motorists can be trained to move around you if they see you in advance"
HH, supporting the cops theory that motorists should not be held liable for something
they have 'trained' themselves to do ?
Ok, well Im trained to run lites and ride the wrong way as I see fit, so it must be OK, right ?
If you are disagreeing with me I can expect to see you taking issue with your disciple about taking the lane ?

I dont have the time or intestinal fortitude to do the A&S petty semantisizing
and hypothetical situationing stuff......

This women was doing everything 'the system' required her to do in Portland and
was killed for it. How can you not understand that ?
Are you "Motorists can be trained to move around you if they see you in advance"
HH, supporting the cops theory that motorists should not be held liable for something
they have 'trained' themselves to do ?
Ok, well Im trained to run lites and ride the wrong way as I see fit, so it must be OK, right ?
You're not being reasonable, Lem.
Equating "trained to run lites" with "trained to assume no one is to your right when you are in the rightmost lane" is unreasonable.

Ok, I am unreasonable, I will accept that and work on it.......

But, relatively/geographically speaking.....are motorists in Portland,
one of the most cycle friendly areas in the western hemisphere really not
conditioned to be aware of cyclists on thier right ? I think not.
Maybe in a place where there are no cyclists, but in Portland ??
I have trouble with that.

"[The driver, Timothy] Wiles arrived at the intersection before Ms. Sparling and came to a stop, waiting to turn right. Wiles did not see Ms. Sparling as she approached his stopped truck, nor did he see her as he went into his turn," Sparks wrote in his memo. "Ms. Sparling stopped in the bike lane near Wiles' right front wheel, and was, due to her location and diminutive stature, not visible to Wiles; she was, through no fault of her own, in the driver's blind spot....

If the driver had gotten "as close as is practical to the right curb or edge of the road" before turning right as the Oregon Driver Manual (page 34) says to do, then Ms. Sparling wouldn't have been able to occupy the same space. Or am I missing something?

We are assuming that the cement truck driver had his turn signal on when she rode up on his right side.

If the driver had gotten "as close as is practical to the right curb or edge of the road" before turning right as the Oregon Driver Manual (page 34) says to do, then Ms. Sparling wouldn't have been able to occupy the same space. Or am I missing something?

Then there's the definition of "the edge of the road" -- was it the curb, or was it the painted line of the bike lane?

I don't know; I just don't like to see either person (driver or cyclist) getting roasted over this.

We are assuming that the cement truck driver had his turn signal on when she rode up on his right side.

Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. One witness said he didn't think he saw the turn signal, but he wasn't sure; another trucker and a cop saw that the truck's turn signal remained flashing after its hazard flashers were switched off, which meant that the turn signal was already activated at some point.

If the driver had gotten "as close as is practical to the right curb or edge of the road" before turning right as the Oregon Driver Manual (page 34) says to do, then Ms. Sparling wouldn't have been able to occupy the same space. Or am I missing something?
Yes, there is another law that kicks in and overrides this law when a bike lane is present. That law prohibits the motorist from driving in the bike lane, and only allows crossing it as he turns right across it.

The specifics of the accident have already been gone over. Please focus your comments on the issue of justice for the cyclist. I'd suggest responding to Elly Blue's rebuttal rather than the Merc article (although the Merc and Elly appear to reach the same conclusions).

Ok, I am unreasonable, I will accept that and work on it.......

But, relatively/geographically speaking.....are motorists in Portland,
one of the most cycle friendly areas in the western hemisphere really not
conditioned to be aware of cyclists on thier right ? I think not.
Maybe in a place where there are no cyclists, but in Portland ??
I have trouble with that.
The LAB designation of "bike friendly" is a misnomer. It is mostly a reflection of how many facilities there are, and not much at all about how well motorists treat bicyclists. In fact, Portland seems to have the worst stories. For example, this is where the guy got out of the bus to beat up a bicyclist, then the driver let him back in and they drove away.

Anyway, what conditions motorists to not expect traffic on their right when they are in the rightmost lane is the reality of driving for years and thousands of miles with few if any incidents like that, with or without a bike lane present. That's just human nature, and I can understand the D.A. reluctance to prosecute someone for being human.

Yes, there is another law that kicks in and overrides this law when a bike lane is present. That law prohibits the motorist from driving in the bike lane, and only allows crossing it as he turns right across it.

Ah, ok.


The specifics of the accident have already been gone over. Please focus your comments on the issue of justice for the cyclist. I'd suggest responding to Elly Blue's rebuttal rather than the Merc article (although the Merc and Elly appear to reach the same conclusions).

What justice? What's supposed to be done?

She put herself in a bad position, and he (with a great driving record, BTW) wasn't aware of her presence.

Is there really anybody at fault here? I don't think so, so I can't say that there's justice to be "served" in any direction.

I'm starting to side with the anti-bike lane argument, actually..

I'm also wondering when Elly Blue drove anything the size of that cement truck.

Yes, there is another law that kicks in and overrides this law when a bike lane is present. That law prohibits the motorist from driving in the bike lane, and only allows crossing it as he turns right across it.

In California, a driver is supposed to enter the bike lane before turning right. So it sounds like Oregon's law is at fault.

If no laws were broken, then justice unfortunately wouldn't apply.

It is really sad what happened. Bike lanes should not be to the right of a turning lane. If they are, cyclists should not use them. Get in the through lane, where you can be seen, and not right hooked.

Lem - Lt. Kruger has in fact been removed from the traffic squad. As a result of his incompetence in Traffic, he was promoted to Captain of the Drug and Vice squad.

It is really sad what happened. Bike lanes should not be to the right of a turning lane. If they are, cyclists should not use them. Get in the through lane, where you can be seen, and not right hooked.

Keep in mind that ANY bike lane on a road without right turn ONLY lanes will put a cyclist to the right of a potential turning lane. Until bike lane promoters understand this, you can expect more of the same.

In California, a driver is supposed to enter the bike lane before turning right. So it sounds like Oregon's law is at fault.

If no laws were broken, then justice unfortunately wouldn't apply.
I don't know that the law governing minutia of right turn behavior with respect to bike lanes matters much in practice - I don't think it affects behavior much. I know what the law requires in CA, but few drivers actually do that, especially (ironically) when bicyclists are present. I doubt these types of crashes are any more likely in OR, and even if they are, I doubt it's because of the difference in the law.

So, I fault the bike lane stripe. Quite a few of us here (edit: including JoeJack who just posted above me!) have concluded that there should be no bike lane stripe within 100' (if not 200') of any place where rights turns are allowed, except maybe if it's to demarcate a bike lane that is to the left of a right only lane.

There are some unfortunate misunderstandings going on here. There is a difference between a criminal and a civil wrong. Crimes generally require intent, and traffic homicide charges generally require at least criminal recklessness, which is something more than mere negligence. The truck driver clearly was wrong, and Tracey's family's redress is in civil court. But without intent, or at least recklessness (which certainly is more than not seeing a cyclist to the right), I think the prosecutor was right. It's a civil wrong, but not a criminal wrong.

Beyond that, I think the law is correct in this regard. People make mistakes. It's not because they are evil, it's because they are human. Every one of us has made a mistake while driving - almost always nothing happens. Sometimes it does. Running the stop sign or the light because the sun hits us wrong, not seeing the car in the blind spot, any one of a thousand things that can go wrong. I am colorblind, and I have trouble seeing stop signs sometimes that are surrounded by green vegetation. I try hard to see them, but sometimes I don't. I've never caused an accident, but I know at some point I might. If I do, it will be, and should be negligence, but not criminal.

I'm all about cyclist awareness, we all need to look out for ourselves.

But when you're driving any vehicle, especially one capable of serious bodily harm, like a truck, it's a no-brainer that you should be very aware of your surroundings and drive with extreme caution.

This doesn't have much to do with bike lanes. I'm not sure he knew what he was saying, but Lieutenant Kruger made an interesting point. He thought he was defending the truck driver with his "100 years of conditioning" argument.

But what he really did was to point out that for far too long, cyclists have been overlooked as important road users. Lt. Kruger said the cyclist was careless, but so was the truck driver. For years, drivers have been conditioned not to expect cyclists on the road. So what Lt. Kruger really did was to emphasize that motorists need to be more aware of cyclists than they are.

Sure, cyclists need to look out for themselves. But so do motorists need to look out for cyclists, since a mistake like this can end a lifetime quickly.

...and the last thing cyclists need is to give motorists excuses to be lazy.

Lem - Lt. Kruger has in fact been removed from the traffic squad. As a result of his incompetence in Traffic, he was promoted to Captain of the Drug and Vice squad.

That's fine, but I don't think he had anything to do with the occurrence of the accident that day. He wasn't driving the truck, nor was he riding the bike.

I would suggest not using an unfortunate accident like this one to campaign against an official, no matter how incompetent he was. There are better things to learn from an accident.

But when you're driving any vehicle, especially one capable of serious bodily harm, like a truck, it's a no-brainer that you should be very aware of your surroundings and drive extremely carefully.

And he was, having logged an excellent driving record.


But what he really did was to point out that for far too long, cyclists have been overlooked as important road users.

And she was, literally, "overlooked", since the truck driver was probably twice as far from the ground as she was and hidden behind the engine compartment's large hood.

What people are failing to remember is simple:

If you can't see their eyeballs, they have no chance of seeing you.

I've nearly been run off the road a couple times by a truck. I was in the same place, just off the front right wheel... and I was in a CAR. The driver simply did not see me. I could barely see into the truck cab's windows myself, never mind being able to see the actual driver.

It's an old lesson: Stay out of blind spots.

There are some unfortunate misunderstandings going on here. There is a difference between a criminal and a civil wrong. Crimes generally require intent, and traffic homicide charges generally require at least criminal recklessness, which is something more than mere negligence. The truck driver clearly was wrong, and Tracey's family's redress is in civil court. But without intent, or at least recklessness (which certainly is more than not seeing a cyclist to the right), I think the prosecutor was right. It's a civil wrong, but not a criminal wrong.

Beyond that, I think the law is correct in this regard. People make mistakes. It's not because they are evil, it's because they are human. Every one of us has made a mistake while driving - almost always nothing happens. Sometimes it does. Running the stop sign or the light because the sun hits us wrong, not seeing the car in the blind spot, any one of a thousand things that can go wrong. I am colorblind, and I have trouble seeing stop signs sometimes that are surrounded by green vegetation. I try hard to see them, but sometimes I don't. I've never caused an accident, but I know at some point I might. If I do, it will be, and should be negligence, but not criminal.
Well said.

...
But, relatively/geographically speaking.....are motorists in Portland,
one of the most cycle friendly areas in the western hemisphere really not
conditioned to be aware of cyclists on thier right ? I think not.
Maybe in a place where there are no cyclists, but in Portland ??
I have trouble with that.

In this particular case on that particular corner I would say that the victim could easily have been an old lady crossing the street or someone pushing a stroller, and I'm sure the commentary from kruger would have been different. Are Portland truck drivers conditioned to expect that pedestrians might be in the crosswalk?

Robert

In this particular case on that particular corner I would say that the victim could easily have been an old lady crossing the street or someone pushing a stroller, and I'm sure the commentary from kruger would have been different. Are Portland truck drivers conditioned to expect that pedestrians might be in the crosswalk?

Robert

Well, a pedestrian in the crosswalk might've had a better shot, actually. They would have probably been there well before the truck arrived, so the driver would've seen them ahead of time. They would also be a few feet farther away, making them more likely to be seen over the engine.

Bike lanes are dangerous at intersections for the same reason that sidewalks are dangerous at intersections.
I'd much rather be in the center of a lane at an intersection.... it's where the drivers' eyes are.

I ride a few BL's here in Penticton, but I never forget that the magic white line is the illusion of safety.

Well, a pedestrian in the crosswalk might've had a better shot, actually. They would have probably been there well before the truck arrived, so the driver would've seen them ahead of time. They would also be a few feet farther away, making them more likely to be seen over the engine.

On that particular corner, a ped or group of peds could have popped out of the establishment that opens directly onto the corner while the truck was at the light, or come down the sidewalk of the intersecting street, and could easily have started walking across the street without the driver seeing them. A kid could be standing on that corner and certainly be just as hard to see from the cab of a truck as Tracey Sparling supposedly was. I'll add that, while it certainly seems likely that she was in the 'blind spot', in fact we don't know for sure if that is true and we don't know if this driver even looked that direction before turning.

I'm not ready to blame anyone for this horrible tragedy and you won't hear me clamor for criminal charges against this driver[1]. But clearly, in the parlance of the day, 'mistakes were made,' all around.

Operating a vehicle like that in a crowded and tight downtown area like Portland is of course a serious responsibility. The slightest oversight on the driver's part can mean death to pedestrians or cyclists; the slightest oversight on the part of pedestrians or cyclists sharing the street will end in tragedy if the driver's not incredibly careful, all the time. Of course those peds and cyclists do lots of idiotic things so the driver has to account for them as well as himself, all the time. So the driver gets it from both ends, but that's just the way it is. He is not the one who will be killed if something goes wrong. The fact that this guy ran over somebody is pretty clear indication to me that he wasn't at that time proceeding with due diligence required of that operating environment, which is crawling with bicyclists and pedestrians, and where he should frankly not have been surprised by the possibility of a novice cyclist or pedestrian moving into his blindspot at that corner. But achieving that level of vigilance consistently is far easier said than done, and everybody makes mistakes. That last sentence is as good a description of traffic as any other I've heard.

Regardless, downtown Portland's bike lanes do not help matters and should probably be removed en masse. There I said it.

Robert

[1] It will be interesting to see if they cite him for violating Portland's bike lane law, which he clearly did, or what twisted rationale they come up with to avoid doing so.

That's fine, but I don't think he had anything to do with the occurrence of the accident that day. He wasn't driving the truck, nor was he riding the bike.

I would suggest not using an unfortunate accident like this one to campaign against an official, no matter how incompetent he was. There are better things to learn from an accident.
Kruger's attitude and history is full of pro-motorist/anti-cyclist sentiment; but I agree that's another story and not the main point here.

I think part of the point is that there should be additional choices, between criminal homicide and a traffic ticket (which hasn't been issued yet, AFAIK...). manslaughter, negligent driving, something...

:(

the other thing is that I agree with everyone who says destination positioning is important, but the city's response to all of this is to reinforce the bike-lane-to-the-right concept.

the whole thing is complicated by the fact that the intersection in question has been modified to accomodate a freeway on-ramp which IMO is a contributing factor.

Kruger's attitude and history is full of pro-motorist/anti-cyclist sentiment; but I agree that's another story and not the main point here.

I think part of the point is that there should be additional choices, between criminal homicide and a traffic ticket (which hasn't been issued yet, AFAIK...). manslaughter, negligent driving, something...

:(

So he's to be busted for turning across a bike lane that, for all he could know and see, was unoccupied? Do you think that a CDL driver actually wants to cause an accident? Their careers depend on clean driving -- a typical office worker doesn't have that responsibility.


the other thing is that I agree with everyone who says destination positioning is important, but the city's response to all of this is to reinforce the bike-lane-to-the-right concept.

Better than bike-lane-to-the-left, I guess. Besides, they're doing what the cyclists seem to want them to do, and that's to put bike lanes everywhere.


the whole thing is complicated by the fact that the intersection in question has been modified to accomodate a freeway on-ramp which IMO is a contributing factor.

Shouldn't peds & cyclists realize that it leads to a freeway on-ramp and modify their behavior accordingly?

(there I go, quoting line-by-line... I hate it when people do that...)

Once again, for some unknown reason, the cyclist is being made into a faultless martyr who was run down by a big bad truck while the corrupt establishment stands by and laughs.

Cyclists make mistakes too, ya know.

Blind-spots from a HGV/truck perspective.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/lorry-blind-spots-explained-by-a-driver

And he was [careful,] having logged an excellent driving record.
Unless you count this incident.


And she was, literally, "overlooked", since the truck driver was probably twice as far from the ground as she was and hidden behind the engine compartment's large hood.
I can't speak for anywhere else, but here in Atlanta, right-turning motor traffic is required by law to yield to cyclists in the bike lane. Even if there is no specific law regarding yielding right-of-way like this, a professional driver who does not know to check the bike lane in his mirror before turning right needs to go back to driving school (and that's being kind.)

In this particular case on that particular corner I would say that the victim could easily have been an old lady crossing the street or someone pushing a stroller, and I'm sure the commentary from kruger would have been different. Are Portland truck drivers conditioned to expect that pedestrians might be in the crosswalk?

Robert

As one who spends as much time walking or jogging as cycling, I have to be on guard constantly against being right-hooked. I do not enter an intersection without first making eye contact with any right-turning motorist who is close enough to be a threat. If I am walking or jogging in the same direction as traffic flow and there is a bike lane to the left of a right-turn-only lane, I sometimes launch my intersection crossing from there instead of the curb, specifically to avoid being right-hooked. ("Vehicular jogging," anyone? :) )

As one who spends as much time walking or jogging as cycling, I have to be on guard constantly against being right-hooked. I do not enter an intersection without first making eye contact with any right-turning motorist who is close enough to be a threat. If I am walking or jogging in the same direction as traffic flow and there is a bike lane to the left of a right-turn-only lane, I sometimes launch my intersection crossing from there instead of the curb, specifically to avoid being right-hooked. ("Vehicular jogging," anyone? :) )
John E, of course I agree with you on that. But if pedestrians and cyclists are supposed to be careful (after all, it's drummed into us almost from birth--"look out for cars,") so much more so should drivers exercise extreme caution. Unfortunately, drivers are often subjected to stiffer penalties for not having a current tag than they are for unsafe driving habits.

.......Unfortunately, drivers are often subjected to stiffer penalties for not having a current tag than they are for unsafe driving habits.


Argeed, I just went and reviewed what the penalty would be on my SUV for being a month late, and it happens to be almost 100 US dollars, our state's upcoming penalty for the first infraction of not using a handsfree cell phone while driving is going to be 20 US dollars.

The fact that this guy ran over somebody is pretty clear indication to me that he wasn't at that time proceeding with due diligence required of that operating environment, which is crawling with bicyclists and pedestrians, and where he should frankly not have been surprised by the possibility of a novice cyclist or pedestrian moving into his blindspot at that corner. But achieving that level of vigilance consistently is far easier said than done, and everybody makes mistakes. That last sentence is as good a description of traffic as any other I've heard.

:beer:

This is Robert Hurst at his best, though I wish you would incorporate the implications of that bolded sentence, which applies just as much to bicyclists as it does to truck drivers or any other human, into your book more. That is, because everybody makes mistakes, relying on vigilance alone is not only far easier said than done, but it is impossible.

That means we have to rely on something other than vigilance too, and this is what is so hard for you to accept. Even though you implicitly admit above that "achieving that level of vigilance" is not possible, you have no problem advocating reliance on vigilance. Yet your arguments against relying on anything else, particularly operating in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road and the safe and legal behavior of others, is that these approaches are not reliable. Well, of course, taken alone, none of these approaches is enough. But when you put them all together, I think you're about as safe as one can reasonably be. In particular:

Achieve as high a level of vigilance by establishing and maintaining situational awareness all around you as best as you reasonably can.
Know and follow the rules of the road.
Know and follow cycling best practices (like not stopping or passing on the right, particularly at a place where they can and might turn right).
Predict the actions of others based on assuming that they will probably, but not necessarily, do what is legal and common for someone to do in their situation. Look for indications about whether they will or will not do what you expect before you put your life in a situation that assumes they will behave as you predict.
I believe those are the four key cornerstones of traffic cycling safety. Forester nails (2) and most of (3). He hardly touches (1). You nail (1), though I think you don't give enough emphasis to rearward situational awareness. You put more emphasis on the dangers of relying too much on (2) and (3) than on their value, and thus, I believe, discounting the need to do so. Both you and Forester address (4), but not nearly as completely as I would like to see.

I'm saying this now because I've never noticed you make a statement before that puts vigilance in a light that makes it as vulnerable to reliance as the approaches that Forester emphasizes.

Following the rules alone is not enough, and vigilance alone is not enough. But put them together (i.e, 1, 2, 3 + 4 above), and it's about as reliable as it can be. Yes?

I may legally have the right of way, but when I see a cement truck, a panel truck or anything else with really poor visibility, I keep a VERY close eye on it, and will yield if it looks like its going to cross my path.

This to me looks like an accident. I don't fault the driver. I don't think the cyclist did anything legally wrong, but had she been a bit more careful, I think she'd be alive today. That sounds very cold, but it is true. I feel for her family, but I don't think charging the driver is the right move.

Unless you count this incident.


I can't speak for anywhere else, but here in Atlanta, right-turning motor traffic is required by law to yield to cyclists in the bike lane. Even if there is no specific law regarding yielding right-of-way like this, a professional driver who does not know to check the bike lane in his mirror before turning right needs to go back to driving school (and that's being kind.)

Maybe you need a refresher, she positioned herself by his right front tire... climb into the cab of a cement truck in the drivers seat and tell me how well you can see right next to the right front tire.. (you can't see there at all) so maybe we need to stop blaming the drivers in every incident and accept the fact that cyclists make bad decisions, and sometimes they have bad out comes. It sucks but it is reality.

Chief

What people are failing to remember is simple:

If you can't see their eyeballs, they have no chance of seeing you.

I've nearly been run off the road a couple times by a truck. I was in the same place, just off the front right wheel... and I was in a CAR. The driver simply did not see me. I could barely see into the truck cab's windows myself, never mind being able to see the actual driver.

It's an old lesson: Stay out of blind spots.

But the fact is a blind spot is just that... a spot. A moving vehicle offers the driver the opportunity to survey a large section of the road as they approach a desired intersection... if the driver is doing their job, they should observe and assess any situation ahead that may cause conflict on their way to their desired destination.

To not observe a cyclist as the driver passes the cyclist is indicative of the motorist simply not paying attention.

Now if the cyclist, on the other hand, tries to come up from behind and pass, that is clearly the responsibility of the cyclist.

I can't speak for anywhere else, but here in Atlanta, right-turning motor traffic is required by law to yield to cyclists in the bike lane. Even if there is no specific law regarding yielding right-of-way like this, a professional driver who does not know to check the bike lane in his mirror before turning right needs to go back to driving school (and that's being kind.)
The way it sounds to me, there is no way he would've seen her, whether he was looking or not. If you've ever rode in a large truck cab, you'll realize that the drivers have significant blindspots, and even if looking carfefully, a bicyclist can easily be in one of them. I've recently seen a whole bunch of commercials here directed at motorists on the freeway advising them where the blindspots on semi trucks are, and to basically stay out of them if they don't want to get smashed by a semi. As was mentioned earlier, it's possible for a the driver of a big rig like this to look and not see a whole car. Cyclist who come up in blindspots don't stand a chance.

I hate the idea of bike lanes being to the right of turn lanes. The solution as as easy as paint and a sign - here the bike lanes cross over the right turn lanes, and they have signs telling drivers to yeild to cyclists. I think these would pretty much eliminate the problem. Bike lanes create a false sense of security, and it is really stupid to be filtering people alongside right-turning vehicles.

Why are bike lanes designed to put cyclists and drivers in such unworkable situations? Why can't the bike lane end as it approaches the intersection, and force the cyclist to merge into stopped traffic? Or, mark a "danger" zone on the bike lane, so cyclists are aware that cars might right-hook them.

Motorcyclists are taught to be wary of cagers at all times. It seems sensible that cyclists should follow that example. Screw what the law says or doesn't say and take responsibility for your own well-being.

Back to criminal liability.

Is a bike lane a traffic lane equal to a normal traffic lane under the law?

If so, then in the absence of other specific laws, the truck driver should be liable for crossing an adjacent lane without ensuring it was clear.

If not, then what is the legal status of a bike lane?

That's an interesting question. Bike lanes have always caused me more trouble. I move into the car lane to pass an open door or go around a delivery truck parked in it. Get yelled at for not staying in the lane. Reach intersections and have to dodge right hooks, like the incident covered here. And so on.

A motorist or cyclist needs to know the legal status of those lines to properly react to people using cycles. I don't know the legal status of them here in TN. Fortunately, our far-seeing city fathers have no budget for interfering with cyclists and other road users. But I do go places where there are shared and segregated facilities for cycles.

I don't care to speculate about this driver's guilt or innocence. However, the people that are excusing the driver are claiming that there is no way to see what is immediately to the right of the truck. If that is the case:
Cement trucks most probably cost north of $100,000.
A mirror costs $10. to $100 depending on how much of a surcharge someone puts on it. A video camera could be sourced in bulk for similar cost. It seems pretty odd to me that the law does not require a mirror to see all around the truck. If you really can't see what is in the lane to the right by your tire, you need another mirror.

I don't care to speculate about this driver's guilt or innocence. However, the people that are excusing the driver are claiming that there is no way to see what is immediately to the right of the truck. If that is the case:
Cement trucks most probably cost north of $100,000.
A mirror costs $10. to $100 depending on how much of a surcharge someone puts on it. A video camera could be sourced in bulk for similar cost. It seems pretty odd to me that the law does not require a mirror to see all around the truck. If you really can't see what is in the lane to the right by your tire, you need another mirror.

:beer::beer::beer:

I don't care to speculate about this driver's guilt or innocence. However, the people that are excusing the driver are claiming that there is no way to see what is immediately to the right of the truck. If that is the case:
Cement trucks most probably cost north of $100,000.
A mirror costs $10. to $100 depending on how much of a surcharge someone puts on it. A video camera could be sourced in bulk for similar cost. It seems pretty odd to me that the law does not require a mirror to see all around the truck. If you really can't see what is in the lane to the right by your tire, you need another mirror.
Perhaps. And this is what civil law is to determine. If the victim's defense can show that there is reasonable way to do this, and juries agree, then the huge civil penalties truck companies will have to pay will cause them to get the mirrors or whatever they need to do this.

I was once on a jury for a case where woman slipped in a bath tub and injured herself. Part of her case was to argue that the tile in the bathroom was slippery when wet. But this was shown to be tile that is typically used in all hotels. Still, we had the option to find that there are reasonable and much safer alternatives, and, despite the fact that other hotels did not do that, this hotel should have. If a few hotels lose cases like that, then that will bring about change.

But the case has to be good, good enough to at least convince a relatively objective jury, not just certainly non-objective cycling advocates.

Why are bike lanes designed to put cyclists and drivers in such unworkable situations? Why can't the bike lane end as it approaches the intersection, and force the cyclist to merge into stopped traffic? Or, mark a "danger" zone on the bike lane, so cyclists are aware that cars might right-hook them.

Motorcyclists are taught to be wary of cagers at all times. It seems sensible that cyclists should follow that example. Screw what the law says or doesn't say and take responsibility for your own well-being.
:beer:

That's true. Motorcyclists have gotten way beyond blaming their crashes on the stupid behavior of motorists, and have learned to not only accept it, but expect it, and act accordingly. Most bicyclists and bike advocates, who continue to seek change in the behavior of motorists in order to make cycling safe, have a long way to go in this respect. Robert Hurst and most messengers have figured it out, but, judging by most of the commentary on this forum, few of his fans have caught on.

Perhaps. And this is what civil law is to determine. If the victim's defense can show that there is reasonable way to do this, and juries agree, then the huge civil penalties truck companies will have to pay will cause them to get the mirrors or whatever they need to do this.


Not only is there a reasonable way to do this, but that way is also obvious.
That is how our system usually works. However, legislatures can also get involved if they see fit.

MSF course teaches to know and accept the danger and act accordingly. Don't pretend that most people on a motorcycle and the MSF consequently absolve drivers of responsibility. That is just silly.