Oh, I think it should matter how it happened quite a bit, to cyclists. In fact, the and-run aspect of the hit-and-run is irrelevant to us... what we want to learn is how to avoid, as much as is reasonably possibly, the hit part. No?


Repeat situation? Really? Four years ago, Larry Mahr was in the bike lane when he was hit by a drifting motorist. Other than banning bike lanes and vigilantly looking for drifters in a rear-view mirror, I don't know what we cyclists could do to avoid that type of drifting collision. It happens on much slower rural roads as well, and are just as deadly. But from everything we know about this case, that was not the situation at all last week.

In this case, to start, Captain Klokow was hit while traveling in, presumably crossing, the vehicular traffic lane that continues as the ramp to 163.

Cyclists crossing offramp style exits on roads is a well known problem. This is precisely the problem that communities like Portland, OR tried to address with so-called "blue lanes" (with marginal success, if any). The problem is that cyclists are not accustomed to looking far enough back to make sure it's safe to cross, when they cross. That's why I think a sign reminding cyclists to do so is perhaps the best solution. But a "blue lane" that gives cyclists the right-of-way in making the crossing, and alleviates them from any legal responsibility to make sure it's safe to cross before they do so, I believe only complicates these types of crossings.

At any rate, calling the two cyclist deaths in four years on this road "repeat situations" I think is very misleading.


Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Ready, fire!, aim. What specific problem would your "changes [that] should be made" be targetting? (hint: 2 cyclist deaths in four years under quite different situations is not a specific problem).

Serge