Originally Posted by Helmet Head
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
Well first of all the issues surrounding this particular road are very unique... It was once a hiway, and has hiway style ramps leading to other now existing hiways. The road is uniquely wide even though limited to two lanes either way... but the perceived width allows motorists to feel quite comfortable driving at high speeds, thus establishing the rather unique 65MPH speed limit on a road with bike lanes. Hiway like speeds where the BL are not separated by any particularly wide shoulder from the automotive traffic lanes.
Now your particular bent of "banning bike lanes" would then put cyclists right into 65MPH traffic lanes... a situation that does not exist now anywhere I know of. So that is not even a logical solution.
Now regarding the blue lanes and their use as a solution... again the high speed limits of KV road are unique and well beyond that which exists in Portland. And regarding their alleged success (you said "with marginal success, if any"), well the
folks that did the follow up studies believe they were successful, and the cyclists feel they were successful. Forester and other anti-bike laners have their own biased opinions.
Now regarding your statement: "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." The reason cyclists may not "look back far enough" is because again this is a unique road with excessively high speeds. Most cyclists do not ride on 65MPH roads.
"At any rate, calling the two cyclist deaths in four years on this road "repeat situations" I think is very misleading." I don't... especially in light of the area in which both deaths occured... within a short distance of the same ramp area. It is not misleading to say that perhaps there is a problem with this particular area. There is history.
What can be done? Well as this road is NOT a major thoroughfare to motorvehicle traffic... perhaps the focus of the road should be changed to better serve the cycling community. Motorists have alternative routes... cyclists are very limited in trying to move along the north south corridor. The use of barriers to close ramps, and aid in traffic calming and to reduce the speeds along this road may well prevent further accidents of the type experienced by two cyclists in nearly the exact same location on this road.